“Raising Sexually Pure Kids”

Sexual Abstinence, Conservative

Christians and American Politics
 At the Interface

Series Editors
Dr Robert Fisher
Dr Nancy Billias

Advisory Board
Dr Alejandro Cervantes-Carson Owen Kelly
Professor Margaret Chatterjee Dr Martin McGoldrick
Dr Wayne Cristaudo Revd Stephen Morris
Dr Mira Crouch Professor John Parry
Dr Phil Fitzsimmons Professor Peter L. Twohig
Dr Jones Irwin Professor S Ram Vemuri
Professor Asa Kasher Revd Dr Kenneth Wilson, O.B.E

Volume 59
A volume in the Critical Issues series
‘Sex and Sexuality’

Probing the Boundaries

“Raising Sexually Pure Kids”
Sexual Abstinence, Conservative
Christians and American Politics

Claire Greslé-Favier

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2009

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO
9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents -
Requirements for permanence”.

ISBN: 978-90-420-2678-0
E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-2679-7
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2009
Printed in the Netherlands
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction ix

Chapter 1
Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History 1

Chapter 2
“Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes 17

Chapter 3
“Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker 37

Chapter 4
“Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses:
The Heritage Foundation and Rebecca Hagelin 47

Chapter 5
“Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses:
The G. W. Bush Administration 61

Chapter 6
Abstinence and Creationism 85

Chapter 7
Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority 103

Chapter 8
Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell 117

Chapter 9
Abstinence and Parental Rights 135

Chapter 10
Abstinence and Welfare 155

Chapter 11
Abstinence and the “Culture War” 177

Chapter 12
The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses 193
 Table of Contents
______________________________________________________________
Chapter 13
A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies 217

Conclusion 235

Bibliography 251
 Acknowledgments

In 2004, the American Studies department of the Universität

Dortmund welcomed me. Since then they have provided me with the
enriching and stimulating environment that allowed me to bring forth this
book.
I would like to thank Prof. Walter Grünzweig and Prof. Randi
Gunzenhäuser from the Universität Dortmund, as well as Prof. Claudette
Fillard from the Université Lumière Lyon II, for their invaluable supervision
and their warm encouragement throughout the past years.
I am also very grateful to my colleagues in Dortmund for all their
enlightening and challenging feedback.
My final thanks go to my parents and my grandmother for
supporting me in so many ways; to my friends for pointing out interesting
media resources regarding my topic and sharing with me insights from their
own disciplines; and to Andreas for patiently bearing my constant obsessions
with abstinence, Americans and their sex lives for more than three years.
 Introduction

The time has come to think about sex. To some, sexuality may
seem to be an unimportant topic, a frivolous diversion from the
more critical problems of poverty, war, disease, racism,
famine, or nuclear annihilation. But it is precisely at times
such as these, when we live with the possibility of unthinkable
destruction, that people are likely to become dangerously crazy
about sexuality. Contemporary conflicts over sexual values and
erotic conduct have much in common with the religious
disputes of earlier centuries. They acquire immense symbolic
weight. Disputes over sexual behavior often become the
vehicles for displacing social anxieties, and discharging their
attendant emotional intensity. Consequently, sexuality should
be treated with special respect in time of great social stress. 1

Over the past decade the European public has become at least
superficially aware, through TV shows and newspaper articles, of the
promotion of sexual abstinence before marriage by US conservative
Christians. This phenomenon is often seen by Europeans, in countries which
promote a “Planned Parenthood” type of sexual education like France and
Germany, as something ludicrous, another example of American
“Puritanism.” Western European TV channels and magazines strike viewers
by featuring abstinent teenagers explaining their motivations or by presenting
fathers pledging to protect their daughters’ virginity during formal “Purity
Balls.” 2 Even to some western European Catholics the idea of asking
teenagers to remain abstinent before marriage seems at best unrealistic. Why
would chastity work in the United States, a modern society saturated by
sexual messages where birth control is easily available, when the Catholic
Church has been trying to implement it for centuries with mitigated results
even among its own clergy? For people educated in deeply secular countries
where sexual matters are considered more private and less legally regulated
than in the United States, or even for Americans educated this way, it is
indeed very easy to ridicule the conservative and religious communities’
x Introduction
______________________________________________________________
promotion of abstinence as a reactionary and necessarily marginal attitude.
However, over the past two decades, the idea that sexual abstinence before
marriage is desirable has achieved an almost hegemonic status in
contemporary debates around sexual education in the United States. After the
liberalisation of attitudes towards sexuality during the 1960s and 70s, the US
approach to sexual education underwent a conservative backlash led by
conservative Christians and the Reagan administration and reinforced by the
threat of AIDS in the 1980s.
Today, most US schools are teaching abstinence, be it through
“abstinence-only” programs - that promote abstinence without providing
information on contraception and abortion except to underline their failure
rates and potential negative consequences - or “abstinence-plus” programs -
that privilege abstinence but provide information on contraception and
abortion and are therefore dismissed as “not being abstinence at all” by most
conservatives Christians. A 2006 review of US abstinence and abstinence-
only policies and programs published in the Journal of Adolescent Health
stated that in 2000

92% of middle and junior high schools and 96% of high

schools taught abstinence as the best way to avoid pregnancy,
HIV, and STDs. Only 21% of junior high and 55% of high
school teachers taught the correct use of condoms. Between
1988 and 1999, sharp declines occurred in the percentage of
teachers who supported teaching about birth control, abortion,
and sexual orientation, and in the percentages who actually
taught these subjects. For example, in 1999, 23% of secondary
school sexuality education teachers taught abstinence as the
only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, compared with only
2% who had done so in 1988. In 1999, one-quarter of sex
education teachers said they were prohibited from teaching
about contraception. 3

Even major sex education organizations like Planned Parenthood

SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States),
while disapproving of abstinence-only, privilege abstinence as the best way
for teens to prevent pregnancy and STDs. As suggested by journalist Judith
Levine in 2001, “today, the embrace of abstinence appears nearly unanimous.
The only thing that is left to debate is whether abstinence is the only thing to
teach.” 4 For G. W. Bush and his administration, it was. This, in spite of the
fact that most Americans, while privileging an approach to sex education
based on abstinence, massively favored the inclusion of information on
contraception and abortion in sex education courses. 5 The personal
commitment of the president and of the members of his administration 6
 Claire Greslé-Favier xi
______________________________________________________________
dealing with this issue was unprecedented. Never before had a US president
committed himself so personally to the reformation of young people’s sexual
life and sexual choices.
The question of abstinence is sometimes dismissed by scholars as
something peripheral, a minor moral agenda of religious conservatives
concerned with a trivial matter: sexuality, and therefore of little political
relevance. To paraphrase anthropologist Gail Rubin, abstinence is often
perceived as a “frivolous diversion” from more critical political problems. 7
However, the enduring commitment of the Bush administration to a strict
definition of abstinence-only education highlights the fact that this issue is
anything but trivial and conveys important cultural and political messages.
Indeed, why did this administration keep supporting programs that many
Americans were finding too extreme and which after years of research
hinting in that direction were proven inefficient in delaying sexual activity?
The amount of money dedicated to abstinence-only programs in the federal
budget was not particularly high on a national scale, $171.89 million in fiscal
year 2006. 8 However, it did represent a significant sum for programs which
were finally found inefficient in reducing STD rates and teen pregnancies and
for an administration that cut numerous other welfare spending. In April
2007, an authoritative study commissioned by Congress concluded that sex
education programs that focus only on abstinence while excluding
information on contraception do not prevent teenagers from having sex
before marriage. 9 But these findings did not alter the administration’s
commitment to abstinence-only, for Harry Wilson, Associate Commissioner
at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “this study [was]n’t
rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education
works.” 10 Yet at the end of G.W. Bush’s last term in office, more and more
states started refusing federal funding for abstinence-only education
programs as surveys underlined their inefficiency and as the federal
requirements got narrower and narrower in its definition of “genuine”
abstinence. 11
What I want to analyze in this book are the types of discourses and
the subtexts that justify this unwavering support from the conservative
Christian community across a spectrum that goes from fundamentalist
preachers to the Bush administration, to underline that abstinence is not a
peripheral issue, but is crucial to the sustenance of conservative Christian
ideology and political influence, at least during until the end of the Bush
presidency. As early as 1998, sociologist Sara Diamond observed that

some of the evangelical movement’s most popular projects are

those that seem the most futile. True Love Waits [a prominent
pro-abstinence organization], for instance, is a project that
xii Introduction
______________________________________________________________
combines the themes of parental rights, support for marriage,
and opposition to abortion and sex education. 12

This constitutes one of the major appeals of the contemporary concept of

premarital abstinence, the way it “combines” many of the central demands of
conservative Christian ideology. Throughout this work these various
demands will be explored, as well as the other functions that discourses
promoting premarital abstinence fulfill.
It is my contention that premarital sexual abstinence is not a
marginal moral agenda but first and foremost a cultural and political issue of
great significance in contemporary US politics. Pro-abstinence discourses
coalesce most of the core agendas of conservative Christians and enabled
them and the Bush administration, while it was in office, to preserve
traditional hierarchies, on the one hand, and on the other hand to maintain the
sense of threat necessary to the protection of the status quo and to the
enduring commitment of the conservative Christian constituency.
Debates around sexual issues, be it abstinence, abortion,
homosexuality or STDs, have been for the past two decades at the core of
conservative Christian political agendas. As sociologist Jeffrey Weeks
explains, sexuality

has become a constitutive element in postmodern politics. The

politics of the right is preoccupied with sex education,
abortion, the threat of the “gay agenda,” the dangers of single
parenting and the underclass and the need to shore up the
family and its “traditional” assignment of gender and
childrearing responsibilities. The politics of the left is
challenged by the claims of women and erotic minorities for
rights, and faced by the need to translate its discourse of
fairness and equality into an understanding of sexual change. 13

This central status of sexual debates in contemporary politics is

accounted for by the idea that, as Canadian sexual educator and researcher
Alexander McKay underlines “sexuality is important in that its organization
significantly shapes the nature of society” 14 or, as Jeffrey Weeks formulated
it, “as sex goes, so goes society.” 15 This idea is particularly important when
considering sexual education for, as Mc Kay argues, the

nature of sexuality education is so passionately fought over

because, as an instrument in the sexual socialization of youth,
sexuality education is seen to play a role in the shaping of
sexual values and behavioural norms of our culture which in
turn are widely perceived to impact significantly on the
 Claire Greslé-Favier xiii
______________________________________________________________
character of society as a whole. Sexuality education in the
schools is a key battle ground in a wider social conflict about
sexuality in particular and the nature of society in general. In
other words, the battle over sexuality education is not simply a
dispute over the most effective means to promote the sexual
and reproductive health of youth, but rather it is, first and
foremost, a clash over the shape and direction of society
itself. 16

Contemporary debates over abstinence education are representative of this

“clash” between a conservative and religious view of society and a more
liberal and secular one. As will be shown throughout this book, this debate
does not only take place on a moral level but also involves the organisation of
society according to lines of hierarchies within and outside of the family.
Drawing on previous research, 17 McKay differentiates between two
opposite visions of sexuality, and consequently of society, that he defines as
“restrictive” and “permissive” sexual ideologies respectively. He explains
that the “restrictive” sexual ideology generally appeals to “religious
traditionalists from various faiths, social political conservatives, and radical
feminists.” 18 It can be defined as an “act centered sexual ethic” to the extent
that it focuses on sexual acts which are considered moral or immoral and not
on the individual him/herself.
The “restrictive” sexual ideology originates in early Christianity
with the negative vision of sex defended by St Augustine. Based on the
interpretation of the Genesis and the fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden
of Eden, Augustine considered sexuality as dragging humans down towards
earthly desires and away from God and spirituality. With the spread of
Christianity to the whole occidental world, this vision would remain the norm
for centuries. As summed up by Weeks the “restrictive” or “absolutist”
sexual ideology as he himself calls it, claims that

the disruptive powers of sex can only be controlled by a clear-

cut morality, intricately embedded in a particular set of social
institutions: marriage, heterosexuality, family life and (at least
in the Judaic-Christian tradition), monogamy. 19

Consequently, the only morally acceptable frame for sexual activity is the
heterosexual marriage. Any other forms of sexuality are not morally
acceptable and can only have negative outcomes. For example, premarital sex
is seen as leading

to “insecurity and hurt” and “dashed expectations” as well as

“emotional problems” including “depression,” “neurotic
xiv Introduction
______________________________________________________________
behavior,” and “feelings of inadequacy,” not to mention “loss
of appetite” and “headaches.” 20

However, some proponents of the “restrictive” sexual ideology nuance the

notion of sexuality as only negative and advocate the idea that it can be
positive in the context of a committed relationship. This idea makes
premarital sex even less acceptable as they also argue that “adolescents lack
the maturity to approach sex in an intimate and committed relationship” 21
The contemporary promotion of abstinence inscribes itself into this
tradition. In pro-abstinence discourses premarital sex is systematically
described in terms of risks and negative outcomes. An eloquent illustration of
this attitude is provided by Levine who explains that

[c]ommonly, in the professional literature, sex among young

people is referred to as a “risk factor,” along with binge
drinking and gun play, and the loss of virginity as the “onset”
of intercourse, as if it were a disease. 22

In pro-abstinence discourses, teens are systematically described as too

immature to assume the potential consequences of their sexuality. They are
urged to resist peer and media pressure to engage in an activity which is not
appropriate to their age and could ruin their physical and mental health as
well as their life prospects. As noted by sociologist Jessica Fields, sexuality
researcher Deborah Tolman and other scholars, such discourses erase the
notion of pleasure from discourses on teenage sexuality and ignore the
potentially beneficial, pleasurable and empowering dimension of risk in
human existence. 23 Abstinence education also openly promotes marriage, not
only by reasserting it as the only acceptable frame of sexual activity but also
by presenting its benefits to the individual. For example, the Department of
Health and Human Services explained in 2006, that one of the functions of
abstinence-only programs is to equip students with “skills and knowledge
that give them a greater capacity to develop […] healthy marriages in the
long-term.” 24
Pro-abstinence discourses were fashioned in opposition to the vision
of teenage sexuality developed after the sexual revolution of the 1960s, not
only to counteract its acceptance of teen sexuality as legitimate and positive
but also to ward off its attacks on the traditional heterosexual patriarchal
family cell. Contrary to the “restrictive” sexual ideology, the “permissive”
sexual ideology, that characterized US “comprehensive” sex education after
the sexual revolution up to the 1980s, saw sexuality as

a positive, beneficial, joyous phenomena. Its expression is

connected to personal health, happiness, self-fulfillment, and
 Claire Greslé-Favier xv
______________________________________________________________
social progress. Sex is said to have multiple meanings; it can
be justified as an act of self expression or pleasure, a sign of
affection, love or procreative act. 25

This vision is, McKay argues, mostly promoted by “secular-

humanists, social-political liberals, and liberal feminists.” 26 The “permissive”
sexual ideology is more recent than the “restrictive” one and is linked to the
development of a less theological vision of human nature with the growing
secularization of the Western world and scientific innovations like
Darwinism. This ideology can be defined as a “person centered” sexual ethic.
It is not focused on specific acts but promotes sexual diversity and free
individual choice attained by informed deliberation “guided by the moral
principles of honesty, equality and responsibility.” 27 As long as sexual acts
are consensual and responsible, they are considered legitimate.
The “permissive” sexual ideology constructed in opposition to the
“restrictive” one considers this latter as oppressive. As for the proponents of
a “restrictive” sexual ideology, they consider the “permissive” position as
morally dangerous and unacceptable, as it questions the principles on which
they think a moral and healthy society should be based. The “permissive”
position challenges the “clear cut morality” needed to channel the “disruptive
powers of sex,” 28 and the major tenets of this morality: marriage and the
monogamous heterosexual “traditional” family. It accepts practices like
homosexuality, extra-marital sex in general and premarital sex in particular,
thus allowing for the creation of alternative family cells based on different
types of parenthood. Moreover, its proponents advocate the idea that
individuals can decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong, instead
of following a religious code of morality emanating from a spiritual
authority.
After a growing acceptance of the “permissive” sexual ideology in
the 1970s and early 1980s, the United States in the Reagan era saw an
increasing backlash on issues of sexuality which in spite of the influence of
the Clinton years has continued and been reinforced by the Bush presidency.
Though the population at large acknowledges the need to inform teens about
means of contraception, abortion and protection from STDs, a relative
cultural consensus has been achieved among the adult population on the idea
that abstinence for teenagers is the best option. 29 However, in practice few
youths remain abstinent throughout their teenage years and the data suggests
that even fewer remain abstinent until marriage since “approximately nine
out of 10 men (89%) and women (92%) ages 22 to 24 have had sexual
intercourse” with the average age of first marriage at “26 for women and 27
for men in 2003” 30
Studies of abstinence education and pro-abstinence discourses have
been so far either focused on the history of the pro-abstinence movement and
xvi Introduction
______________________________________________________________
of the conflicts over sex education in the past decades - like the authoritative
book of sociologist Janice M. Irvine, Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex
Education in the United States (2002) - or discussed the subject from a
sociological perspective aimed primarily at underlining the potentially
negative effects of abstinence-only and abstinence education. 31 So far there
has been no study written from an American Studies perspective.
Besides, few scholarly books have been devoted entirely to the topic
of sexual abstinence in general and to abstinence education in the United
States in particular. In A History of Celibacy (1999) Elisabeth Abbot
provided a fascinating global history of different types of sexual abstinence
from antiquity to today, but gives only an extremely brief overview of
abstinence organizations and curricula in the US before the G.W. Bush
presidency.
One of the most recent and enlightening study of sex-education,
including abstinence-education, is Risky Lessons: Sexual Education and
Social Inequality (2008) by sociologist Jessica Fields. It is based on her
sociological study of sex-education classes in three different schools
featuring three different curricula, among them abstinence-only. This work
provides an invaluable account and analysis of what is actually taught in the
classroom and how the curricula is just one of the defining factors of the
lessons conveyed about sex. In fact, Fields explains that by their attitude
towards their students’ behaviour and reactions to the curricula, as well as
through the pedagogical tools they use, teachers send many hidden messages
and deliberately avoid sending others. For example, by showing students
images of bodies that are always white and slim, the teacher implies that this
is the physical norm to which students should conform. Not reacting to a
homophobic insult from a student is also a way to evade the issue of sexual
diversity. Through this refusal to address the message sent by the student to
the classroom, the teacher suggests that homophobia is an acceptable
behaviour. Another of Fields’ main contention is that sexual education
reinforces social and racial inequalities. While the rich and mostly white
students of the private school she observed had access to a comprehensive
curricula focused on their personal development and sexual well being, poor
white students were taught abstinence-only. On the other hand African-
American students were offered a comprehensive curriculum, as it was
considered unrealistic to expect abstinence from them. Such disparities
reinforce traditional stereotype of African-Americans as promiscuous, while
the fact that abstinence was taught in sex-segregated classes in a
predominantly white school reinforced the vision of white girls as sexually
pure and in need of protection.
When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex - and Sex
Education - Since the 1960s (2006), by sociologist Kristin Luker, is another
recent book focusing on the debates around sex-education in the United
 Claire Greslé-Favier xvii
______________________________________________________________
States. Similar to J.M. Irvine, Luker studies the conflicting views on sex-
education in the US in the past four decades. However, instead of taking a
historical perspective as Irvine does, Luker centers her analyses on interviews
she conducted in different US communities, to understand the motivations
behind individuals’ commitment to a “conservative” or “liberal” approach to
sexuality. Luker’s book focuses on debates over sexual education and
necessarily involves pro-abstinence discourses however they are not the main
focus of her study. Contrary to the present work which focuses on texts by
pro-abstinence theorists, the “texts” analysed by Luker are interviews of
individuals on both the conservative and liberal sides. Besides, while her
book is fairly recent, it does not at all deal with the involvement of the Bush
administration in the promotion of abstinence. While this study is not devoid
of interest I think that, in spite of its later publishing date, it brings little that
was not already present in Irvine’s more systematic and thorough analysis,
which approached the subject with more historical grounding and less
redundancy. Moreover, I disagree with Luker’s dismissal of the influence of
the Puritan sexual heritage on contemporary American attitudes about
sexuality. While the vision of Puritans as “anti-sex” has been reassessed in
the past years, and ascribing to them the whole responsibility for
contemporary sexual taboos is somewhat misleading, their influence on the
emergence of the polarity between marital and extramarital sexuality among
others is, I think, significant.
Several books devote very interesting chapters to abstinence
education, like Levine’s excellent Harmful to Minors: The Perils of
Protecting Children from Sex (2002), in which she denounces what she sees
as the excesses which have resulted from the protection of minors from
sexuality, like the pedophile paranoia of the 1980s and 1990s, the
condemnation of ever younger sexual “delinquents,” or abstinence-only
education.
In Talk About Sex, Irvine surveys major issues of the sex-education
conflict: the attempt to entirely ban sex education before the 1980s;
conservative Christians’ use of the rhetoric of abstinence; or the opposition to
educational materials featuring homosexuality as a legitimate sexual choice.
She devotes a significant part of her book to abstinence education and
provides an extremely rich analysis of the conservative Christian rhetoric and
its evolution in matters of sex education.
Educational policy professor Wanda S. Pillow tackles the issue in a
very enlightening chapter of her book, Unfit Subjects: Educational Policy
and the Teen Mother (2004). She argues that abstinence education, in order to
be justified as necessary, requires a continuous “incitement” to the
production of negative discourses about teenage sexual activity. She explains
that these discourses define sex as “dirty” and “dangerous” to reinforce
xviii Introduction
______________________________________________________________
heteronormativity and traditional gender roles and promote marriage as the
best solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy.
In a chapter of his book The Bush Administration, Sex and the Moral
Agenda (2007), Edward Ashbee, Associate Professor at the Center for the
Study of the Americas of the Copenhagen Business School, considers the
question of the support of the Bush administration to abstinence-only
education. Ashbee’s thesis is that, in spite of public perceptions, the G.W.
Bush administration in its positions on sexual morality does not so much
focus on satisfying the Christian Right as on being attuned to the opinion of
mainstream Americans. Overall, Ashbee defends his thesis in a convincing
manner however, in the case of abstinence I found that his arguments were
based on insufficient evidence. While Ashbee is right in asserting that
Americans overall are rather “conservative” regarding sexual matters and that
most of them support the emphasis on abstinence in sexual education, he
assimilates this support to an overall backing of abstinence-only education.
This is problematic insofar as most studies have proven a general demand on
the part of American parents for information on contraception and abortion in
sex-education classes. Ashbee bases his point on an isolated 2003 survey
commissioned by a conservative organization, the Coalition for Adolescent
Sexual Health from the polling agency Zogby: 32

Although organizations such as SIECUS have made much of

these findings [showing parental support of comprehensive
sex-education], they should be set in broader context. The
questions asked in the Zogby International poll suggest that
public opinion is not as clear-cut or unambiguous as
commentators might initially be tempted to conclude. If
parents are asked as a follow-up about the inclusion of specific
forms of instruction or activity 33 in sex education courses,
much of the backing that was evident for the programmes
when they are talked of in generalized or abstract terms, begins
to drop away. 34

This reference to the Zogby poll enables Ashbee to ground his thesis that the
Bush administration in its propagation of abstinence-only education is not
disconnected from moderate public opinion and does not run the risk of
“alienating” it. 35 However, even if Americans are indeed rather conservative
regarding the presentation of sexual information to children, more recent
studies 36 have underlined the support of parents to approaches to sex-
education that include information on contraception and abortion and their
disapproval of abstinence-only education. 37 For example, a 2006 study
published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, a
publication of the American Medical Association, concluded that
 Claire Greslé-Favier xix
______________________________________________________________

US adults, regardless of political ideology, favor a more

balanced approach to sex education compared with the
abstinence-only programs funded by the federal government.
In summary, abstinence-only programs, while a priority of the
federal government, are supported by neither a majority of the
public nor the scientific community. 38

Likewise, in 2007 a study conducted in California, one of the only states

which consistently refused federal abstinence funding in the past decade,
found that opposition to abstinence-only “requirements that prohibit
instruction in or promotion of the use of contraceptive methods at any grade
level” was overwhelming (96% of parents interviewed) even among self-
identified conservatives:

No single subgroup by region, religion, income, education or

political party dipped below an 80 percent support level for
comprehensive sex education. The lowest level of support was
recorded by those who identified themselves as “very
conservative,” but even they showed overwhelming support at
71 percent. Perhaps most surprising was that 86 percent of
those self-identifying as evangelical Christians reported
supporting comprehensive sex education. 39

In view of this, I believe that it is legitimate to assert that the Bush

administration, in its support of abstinence-only education, is not in
agreement with public opinion and might “alienate” many citizens. In this
respect, Ashbee misled his readers. In Ashbee’s defense, opposition to
abstinence-only education might have been strengthened since 2003 by the
publication of scientific studies underlining the inefficiency of abstinence-
only programs and the growing opposition of states to the ever more stringent
requirements for abstinence-only funding.
A number of scholarly articles have been written about abstinence,
in particular sociological studies evaluating the efficiency of abstinence
programs. 40 However, none of them focused exclusively on pro-abstinence
discourses or envisaged the subject from an American studies perspective.
Moreover, their goal was in most cases only to underline the failures of the
abstinence-only education approach and not, like the present book, to
understand why conservative Christians defend abstinence and what
ideological function this issue plays for them. In my view sociologist Jessica
Fields has produced, in addition to her book, Risky Lessons, the richest and
most challenging set of articles on the issue, on her own and together with
other scholars. Through case studies, Fields questions the impact of the
xx Introduction
______________________________________________________________
movement for gay marriage on young people’s rights by suggesting that
similar to abstinence-only it reasserts the limitation of sexual legitimacy to
marriage and consequently further denies the right of youths to sexual
expression. 41 In an article co-written with Deborah Tolman she also analyses
the construction of teenage sexuality in terms of risk and danger and the
provision by schools of abstinence-only education as a protection from these
risks. Fields and Tolman argue that such a vision fails to provide young
people with the skills and support they need to lead a healthy sexual life, and
thus is itself risky. They also oppose the construction of youths as only
vulnerable, and advocate the acknowledgment of young people’s free choice
and the potentially positive dimension of risk. 42 Finally in “Citizenship
Lessons in Abstinence-Only Sexuality Education” (2007) co-authored with
Celeste Hirschman, Fields underlines the heteronormative dimension of
abstinence-only education.
What I think an American Studies perspective can contribute to the
study of abstinence, which I found lacking in the mostly sociological
approach of available writings on the subject, is a comprehensive analysis of
pro-abstinence discourses. Most studies of abstinence so far have focused on
criticisms of abstinence programs. Few have analysed extensively the
functions and goals of such discourses for the conservative Christian
Community and the Bush administration, as well as the way these have used
and continue to use abstinence to appeal to conservative Christian audiences.
Though these studies shed a relevant and indispensable light on the subject,
they have also overlooked some aspects of this issue. The positions defended
by conservative Christians have been very much condemned, but their roots
and mechanisms have not been investigated thoroughly enough. Moreover,
the possibly relevant remarks made by conservatives about sexuality and
American society at large have been too often dismissed by proponents of the
“permissive” sexual ideological perspective as necessarily “negative.” This is
why I chose to focus my work on pro-abstinence discourses and not on those
that oppose it, to investigate the issue not only from an oppositional
perspective but to understand its grounds. The questions I ask and attempt to
answer here are not so much to know if abstinence is “good” or “bad” but
rather to understand what exactly is at stake in abstinence discourses. Why
were they so prominent in the politics of conservative Christians and of the
Bush administration in the first decade of the twenty-first century? What
political and ideological function they fulfill?
In her studies of the Religious Right’s relationship to culture, the
media and the market, English professor Linda Kintz has provided a
comprehensive analysis of conservative Christian political rhetoric 43 and
inspired my approach to the study of abstinence. When I later read the
passages media studies professor Heather Hendershot devoted to abstinence
in her book, Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative
 Claire Greslé-Favier xxi
______________________________________________________________
Evangelical Culture (2004), I was also greatly interested in the way she
included the conservative Christian perspective in her analysis. With their
cultural studies point of view, these two authors bring a unique perspective
towards these issues. While criticising what they consider a problem in
conservative Christianity, they both avoid the temptation of describing their
subject as “alien” and genuinely seek to understand the attraction of the
discourses of conservative Christian leaders for their followers. Throughout
my work I have also been inspired by the works of sociologist Jeffrey Weeks
and philosophers Michel Foucault, Linda Singer and Antonio Gramsci, to
whom I refer at different stages of my text.
In this book, I do underline some of the problematic dimensions of
abstinence education; however my goal is first and foremost to understand
how pro-abstinence discourses function and which goals their producers seek
to achieve through them. I did not attempt to analyse the responses to pro-
abstinence discourses in a sociological framework. Rather, I have chosen to
focus on texts that I found representative of the different tendencies of pro-
abstinence discourses. I did not decide to focus on the discourses of
opponents of abstinence either, since I found their arguments already
extensively explained by previous studies of the issue.
The need to limit my research to a manageable corpus made me
privilege books, articles, speeches and governmental documents over the
more fluctuating and less easily synthesised contents of the numerous pro-
abstinence websites. I could also have chosen to focus on texts from
abstinence curricula, but these would have provided a less comprehensive
view of pro-abstinence arguments than the broader approach found in the
texts I decided to use. Abstinence curricula are focused on achieving
abstinence by a pedagogical method. The texts I selected, on the other hand,
provide recommendations to help children remain abstinent and display a
wide range of arguments to convince the reader of the necessity of this
approach. Moreover they often dwell on a larger array of related ideological
issues.
The corpus I have decided to analyse is composed of texts that I
considered representative of the various “trends” present in pro-abstinence
discourses:

- Raising Sexually Pure Kids: How to prepare your children for the
Act of Marriage, (1998) by Tim and Beverly LaHaye, a
prominent couple of conservative Christian theorists and activists,
represents the more “religious trend” of pro-abstinence
discourses.
- Restoring the Teenage Soul: Nurturing Sound Hearts and Minds
in a Confused Culture (1999) and Epidemic: How Teen Sex is
Killing Our Kids, by pro-abstinence pediatrician Meg Meeker, are
xxii Introduction
______________________________________________________________
representative of what can be defined as the “medical” trend of
pro-abstinence discourse.
- The “political” trend of pro-abstinence discourses is illustrated
with texts published by the prominent Washington based
conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation, stating its
position on welfare and “family issues” like abstinence, marriage,
abortion, etc; and by extracts of the book Home Invasion:
Protecting Your Family In a Culture That’s Gone Stark Raving
Mad (2005) by Heritage vice-president, Rebecca Hagelin.
- Finally, the “governmental” trend in pro-abstinence discourses is
represented by texts issued by the Bush administration, and
former United States governments (speeches, extracts of laws,
websites, booklets, etc.) regarding the same issues.

The choice of these texts is of course somewhat accidental. For

example while the LaHayes are famous conservative Christian figures, Meg
Meeker is known mostly within the pro-abstinence circuit. I discovered her
writings through Pat Robertson’s TV show the 700 Club and the Heritage
Foundation’s recommendation of her books. However, I believe that I have
assembled a representative sample of pro-abstinence writings.
This study does not seek to be exhaustive - given the prolixity of
pro-abstinence authors such a goal would be unattainable - but tries to offer
an analysis of texts representative of the major types of pro-abstinence
discourses. I am convinced that this study, though limited, can be very
informative. There are many types of pro-abstinence discourses produced by
very different instances - radical evangelical preachers or the Bush
administration - and I sought to make visible the high level of coherence that
this continuum constitutes.
The approach to discourse analysis that I have privileged in this
book is thematic. I have tried to identify the recurring themes in the texts of
my corpus and then studied the significance of these themes in conservative
Christian discourses and politics in general. I then moved on to analyse the
interactions between them and the concept of abstinence on the discursive
level, how they reinforce each other and how the demand for premarital
abstinence gave, in some cases, a new impulse to older agendas. I have also
linked these recurring themes to the wider US historical and cultural context
and underlined their relation to major American cultural narratives and
discursive traditions. Finally, I have analysed how the different producers of
the pro-abstinence texts of my corpus formulated and used, openly or not, the
demand for abstinence together with the agendas related to it and to what
aim.
This book is divided into thirteen chapters. Chapter I constitutes a
historical location of abstinence discourses. It provides a brief overview of
 Claire Greslé-Favier xxiii
______________________________________________________________
the different types of sexual abstinence since early Christianity, the varying
audiences they targeted, and their social, political and cultural functions.
Chapters II to V describe the corpus of texts investigated here and
present their authors.
The purpose of Chapter VI to Chapter XI is to identify the recurring
conservative Christian themes present in pro-abstinence discourses and to
understand how abstinence interacts with other discourses in this culture.
Chapters VI and VII focus on abstinence and religion through the question of
creationism in pro-abstinence discourses and the dichotomous vision of
sexuality constructed by them in order to actualize conservative Christian’s
understanding of their sexuality. Chapters VIII and IX are centered on the
theme of the family in pro-abstinence discourses. The first investigates how
these discourses reassert the traditional patriarchal family cell as the ideal
environment for “raising virtuous children,” while the second section
explores how they advocate the conservative Christian demand for “parental
rights.” Finally, Chapters X and XI highlight in what manner the demand for
abstinence constitutes a discursive tool in the promotion of a conservative
vision of poverty, work and the welfare society and studies the use of the
narrative of the “culture war” by pro-abstinence writers.
Chapters XII and XIII engage in a more critical appraisal of the
political mechanisms in action through pro-abstinence discourses, and seek to
understand the subtexts or “hidden agendas” behind the defense of abstinence
for young people’s sake. The questions asked in these two chapters are: why
did the demand for sexual abstinence become particularly visible in the late
20th and early 21st century? How does the theme of abstinence blur the
boundaries between religious and political discourses? What function did
pro-abstinence discourses play on the one hand for conservative Christians
and on the other hand for the Bush administration in the past decade? Did
pro-abstinence discourses by the Bush administration and by conservative
Christians reinforce traditional adult-child hierarchies, and how? And how far
did they invest teens with the symbolical weight of the nation’s sexual
morality?
The debate over abstinence education might become less heated in
the coming years with the election of president Barack Obama. Yet I believe
it is crucial to understand why this issue, which had significantly subsided
with the sexual revolution, progressively reappeared to achieve such political
and cultural prominence in the American context at the dawn of the twenty-
first century. Especially, since the theme of sexual abstinence education
might be yet again revived in the future to serve similar or new ideological
purposes.
xxiv Introduction
______________________________________________________________
Notes
1
G Rubin, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of
Sexuality’ in C Vance (ed.), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female
Sexuality, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, 1984, p.267.
2
In its issue of May 2007 the French edition of the women magazine
Glamour featured the adaptation of an article on “Purity Balls” from the
magazine’s US edition, see J Baumgardner and N Dépret, ‘Le bal de la
virginité,’ Glamour (French Edition), May 2007, 38, pp.50-54.
3
J Santelli et al., ‘Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education: A Review of
U.S. Policies and Programs,” in Journal of Adolescent Health, 2006, 38 (1):
72-81, p.77.
4
J Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London, 2001, p.92,
emphasis in the original.
5
National Health Information Center, ‘Most Americans Favor
Comprehensive Sex Education,’ in Family Health and Relationships
Newsletter, 20 November 2006, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.healthfinder.gov/newsletters/relation112006.asp>
6
For example Eric Keroack, former medical director of an anti-abortion and
anti-contraception group, was deputy assistant secretary for population affairs
of the HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services) from 2006 to
2007. From 2001 to 2007, abstinence-proponent and prominent conservative
Wade Horn was Secretary for Children and Families at the HHS and oversaw
the administration of abstinence programs; and Mike Leavitt, former
Governor of Utah, who also displayed a strong anti-abortion and pro-
abstinence stance was appointed by President Bush as Secretary of the HHS
(2005-today).
7
Rubin, op. cit., p.267.
8
Republican Study Committee, ‘Title X Funding and Abstinence Funding,’
April 2006, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/HC_061306_TitleXvs.Abstinence
Funding.doc>
9
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510
Abstinence Education Programs, Final Report, April 2007, viewed on 8 May
2007, <http://www.mathematica-
mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf>
10
L Sessions Stepp, ‘Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs,’ The
WashingtonPost.com. 14 April 2007, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_health>
 Claire Greslé-Favier xxv
______________________________________________________________

11
See P J Huffstutter, ‘States Abstain From Federal Sex-Ed Funds,’
LATimes.com. 8 April 2007, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-
abstinence8apr08,1,1290457,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true>
12
S Diamond, Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian
Right, The Guilford Press, New York, 1998, p.129.
13
J Weeks, Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in an Age of Uncertainty,
Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, p.83.
14
A McKay, Sexual Ideology and Schooling: Towards Democratic Sexuality
Education, State of New York University Press, Albany, 1999, p.19.
15
J Weeks, Sexuality, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 1986, p.36.
16
McKay, op. cit., p.13.
17
See M S Davis, Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983; J Weeks, Sexuality and its Discontents:
Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London, 1985 and J Weeks, Sexuality, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester,
1986; S Seideman, Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethics in
Contemporary America, Routledge, New York, 1992.
18
McKay, op. cit., p.38.
19
Weeks, Sexuality, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 1986, p. 100.
20
Davis, op. cit., p.209, cited in McKay, op. cit.
21
Seidman, op. cit., , p.6, cited in McKay, op. cit.
22
Levine, op. cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii.
23
J Fields and DL Tolman, ‘Risky Business: Sexuality Education and
Research in U.S. Schools,’ in Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC,
September 2006, 3 (4), pp. 63-76, p.64.
24
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, ‘Announcement for Funding Opportunity Under
CBAE, Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099,’
2006a, viewed on 22 March 2007, <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/pdf/HHS-
2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.pdf>
25
Seidman, op.cit., pp. 5-6, cited in MacKay, op. cit.
26
McKay, op. cit.,p.38.
27
ibid., p.57.
28
Weeks, op. cit., p. 100.
29
See B Albert, ‘American Opinion on Teen Pregnancy and Related Issues
2003,’ 7 February 2004, viewed 11 May 2007,
<https://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/American_Opinion.pdf>, C
Dailard, ‘Sex Education: Politicians, Parents, Teachers and Teens,’ February
2001, viewed on 5 February 2009,
<http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html>
xxvi Introduction
______________________________________________________________

30
Kaiser Family Foundation, ‘Sexual Health Statistics for Teenagers and
Young Adults in the United States,’ September 2006, viewed on 11 May
2007, <http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/3040-03.pdf>
31
See Levine, op. cit.; J Fields, ‘Same-Sex Marriage, Sodomy Laws, and the
Sexual Lives of Young People,’ Sexuality Research and Social Policy:
Journal of NSRC, September 2004, 1 (3), pp. 11-23; Fields and Tolman 2006;
J Fields and C Hirschman, ‘Citizenship Lessons in Abstinence-Only
Sexuality Education,’ American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2007, 2 (2),
pp. 3-25; W S Pillow, Unfit Subjects: Educational Policy and the Teen
Mother, RoutledgeFalmer, New York and London, 2004; B Finlay, George
W. Bush and the War on Women: Turning Back the Clock on Progress, Zed
Books, London and New York, 2006.
32
Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health, ‘Zogby International 2003 Survey
on Parents’ Reactions To Proposed Sex Education Messages In The
Classroom,’ 3 February 2003, viewed on 13 May 2005,
<www.whatparentsthink.com/pdfs/z_p1_sokfbsdbq.pdf>
33
In this case Ashbee refers to the disapproval by parents of demonstration
and practice of condom use on, for instance, wooden models or to the
discussion of masturbation and orgasms.
34
E Ashbee, The Bush Administration, Sex and the Moral Agenda,
Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York, 2007, p.128.
35
ibid., p.128.
36
Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio and the Kennedy School
of Government, ‘Sex Education in America: General Public/Parents Survey,’
2004, viewed on 9 February 2007,
<http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-General-
Public-Parents-Survey-Toplines.pdf>; A Bleakley, M Hennessy and M
Fishbein, ‘Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools,’ Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, November 2006, (160), pp. 1151-1156;
Harris Interactive, ‘Majorities of U.S. Adults Do Not Believe Abstinence
Programs are Effective in Preventing or Reducing HIV/AIDS, Unwanted
Pregnancies or Extra-Marital Sex,’ 11 January 2006, viewed on 23 June
2007, <http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=629>;
Public Health Institute, ‘Regardless of Religion, Politics or Location, New
Poll Shows Overwhelming Parental Support for Comprehensive Sex Ed,’ 23
May 2007, viewed on 25 May 2007,
<http://askmerrill.ml.com/markets_news_story/1,2263,%7B8A40E614-
F1C3-47CB-843B-6DEF0E770DC8%7D,00.html>
37
The latest poll on the issue conducted by the firm Lake Research and
released on June 7, 2007 found out that 88% of the 1,011 adults polled in
May 2007 “agreed that public schools should teach sex education that
 Claire Greslé-Favier xxvii
______________________________________________________________

includes information on abstinence and contraception,” C Wetzstein, ‘Poll

finds majority back birth control; Access sought without ‘delay,’’ The
Washington Times, June 8, 2007a, viewed on 24 June 2007,
<http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/poll_finds_majority_ba
ck_birth_control.htm>
38
Bleakley et al., op. cit., p. 1151.
39
Public Health Institute, 2007.
40
P S Bearman and H Brückner, ‘Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges
and the Transition to First Intercourse,’ American Journal of Sociology,
2001, 106 (4), pp. 859-912; D Kirby, ‘Do Abstinence-Only Programs Delay
the Initiation of Sex Among Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy?,’
October 2002, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf>;
Santelli et al., 2006; Mathematica Policy Research, 2007.
41
Fields, op. cit., 2004.
42
Fields and Tolman, op.cit., 2006.
43
L Kintz, Between Jesus and the Market: The Emotions that Matter in
Right-Wing America, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1997; L
Kintz and J Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious Right, University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.
 Chapter 1
Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage”
Discourses in US History

Sexual abstinence before marriage can seem, at first sight, a

necessary requirement of our forefathers’ sexual lives. The absence of
reliable contraception and the ideal of the virginity of the bride to guarantee
the legitimacy of her husband’s offspring were reason enough to desire it.
However, what were pro-abstinence before marriage discourses concerned
with in the past? By whom were they formulated? At whom were they
targeted, and why? At which point was sexuality considered legitimate? This
historical chapter will attempt to answer these questions in order to situate
contemporary discourses on abstinence in their historical context, and to
underline the similarities they share with, as well as the ways in which they
differ from previous discourses on this issue.

1. Lifelong Abstinence vs. Abstinence Before Marriage

The requirement of abstinence is strongly grounded in religion,
therefore it is important to distinguish between the two different types of
sexual abstinence present in the Christian tradition: lifelong celibacy and
premarital abstinence. The crucial difference between those two types of
celibacies lies in their respective relationship to the concept of family.
Whereas, as this book underlines, premarital abstinence reasserts the
necessity of marriage and family, lifelong celibacy, on the contrary, questions
it.
Lifelong celibacy, which is still demanded from the Catholic clergy,
reflects the traditional catholic vision that sexuality is innately sinful and that
even within marriage it draws the believer away from God. Since early
Christianity, sexuality has been seen as a link to the earthly realm that needed
to be renounced to achieve spiritual immortality. As feminist theologian
Rosemary Radford Ruether explains in her work Christianity and the Making
of the Modern Family,

[t]he renunciation of sex was seen as a key expression of

world renunciation, but not necessarily because sex was the
most urgent need of the body; for many monks, hunger, the
craving of the belly, was a more insistent bodily demand,
and less easy to control. Rather, sex tied a person to
marriage and family […]. Through sex and marriage, “the
world” as a social system of power and possessions was
reproduced. To renounce marriage was to renounce that
2 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
“world” in all its social, economic, and political
implications. 1
Early Christianity, with its demand for lifelong celibacy, was
consequently very much anti-family and privileged the spiritual bonding of
Christian brotherhood over “blood” ties. It thus erased social and ethnic
differences, which made it a deeply subversive movement. A telling example
of this potential can be found in the lives of numerous female saints who
were supported by other Christians in refusing the marriages forced on them
by their families in order to answer their spiritual calling and join a religious
community. 2 Later on, female religious communities would also provide
women with a significant sphere of power and freedom; however, they would
also be used to alienate them. With the spread of Christianity, the subversive
elements of the Christian message were significantly weakened. As for
celibacy, it lost its equalising dimension and began to be used to enforce
hierarchic differences in the community with its institutionalisation by the
clergy. The celibate clergy was thus asserted as standing higher on the
spiritual scale than its non-abstinent parishioners. Yet as Radford Ruether
underlines, though channelled by the Church, this higher status of celibate
priesthood would continue to carry (up to the present day in Catholic
communities) the subversive “anti-family” message “that marriage is a
second-class choice for Christians. Those who aspire to perfection should
renounce sex, marriage, and reproduction for a chaste single life.” 3
The Reformation staunchly opposed this vision of sexual abstinence.
Still inscribing himself in the Augustinian tradition that saw sexuality as
necessarily sinful after the Fall, Luther nevertheless condemned lifelong
celibacy. Radford Ruether states his position on the issue as follow:

For Luther, marriage had been given to men and women by

God in Paradise as the basic unit of society for
companionship and procreation. Since the Fall, all - that is,
all men - had been affected with sinful lust. Thus the
celibate ideal was both wrong and impossible, as it went
against both created and fallen nature. All should marry
because God’s intention from the beginning had been to
unite men and women in marital union and bid them to
procreate. Almost all must marry because the lustful urges
that had arisen from the Fall could be contained without sin
only in marriage. Without marriage, lust would quickly
lead to fornication for all but an exceptional few (again,
men) who could be celibate without falling into sexual sin. 4

She further explains that Luther saw the celibate ideal as “an insult to God”,
who had intended men and women to live together and procreate, and could
 Claire Greslé-Favier 3
______________________________________________________________
only lead to fornication, given men’s lustful nature. He saw proof of this in
all the monks who pretended to be celibate but were not. 5 Indeed, the Church
always met great difficulties in imposing chastity on its clergy, particularly
on the great numbers who did not choose this path out of conviction but
rather by coercion or on financial grounds.
Lutherans also defined a new way to mark the moment when a
couple was declared married. For example, contrary to medieval custom, they
rejected clandestine marriages or marriages that had not been consecrated by
the church and required parental acceptance and public blessing. Thus “they
rejected the canonical view that consent of the couple alone was essential for
a marriage’s validity.” 6 Moreover, to former rituals of marriage, which
predominantly belonged to folk traditions and the family, which they saw as
“a source of sinful waste, gluttony, drunkenness and lascivious dancing” 7
they opposed a sober rite which was used to instruct the couple in the
doctrine of marriage. In this context, as sex could be justified only within
marriage and would be inevitably sinful outside of it, abstinence was seen as
the required standard for unmarried youths, who when coming of age would
be encouraged to marry in order to fulfill God’s mandate of reproduction and
to channel their lust.

2. Pro-Abstinence Discourses from Colonial America to the Early

19th Century
In his book Sexual Revolution in Early America, historian Richard
Godbeer gives an enlightening account of debates around sexuality in the
colonial period. He first explains that at the time of the exploration of the
New World, England was the stage of heated debates about sexuality. Sexual
impropriety was used as a metaphor for sin and chaos, and represented the
fears about an uncertain future harbored by Englishmen after the end of the
long reign of Queen Elisabeth I. Like conservative Christians today, many
English social critics of the time saw premarital sex as an open door to
disorder and immorality.
Godbeer argues that the Puritan settlers brought those concerns with
them to the New World, where they took on a new dimension.

Sexual mores took on additional significance in a colonial

setting: imposing moral order was rendered both more
urgent and more far-fetched by the primitive surroundings
in which colonists found themselves, “a desolate
wilderness” located “at the end of the world.” Such an
environment seemed to encourage debased, even barbaric,
tendencies among those who migrated to North America,
raising the grim prospect of cultural degeneration. That
danger was compounded in the eyes of many
4 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
contemporaries by the presence of apparently savage
Indians and Africans, who threatened to contaminate the
colonist and further compromise their civility. 8
The debate on premarital sex in England and in the New World
revolved around the opposition between the vision of religious and state
authorities, and traditional views on where the boundary between licit and
illicit sex was drawn. Godbeer explains that for a conjugal union to be valid,
English law traditionally only required that a couple declare themselves
husband and wife, even without public ceremony or witnesses. By the late
16th century the religious ceremony was well established in England;
however, the particular context of colonial America revived the practice of
informal marriages. The shortage of ministers and magistrates, in particular,
encouraged this practice. Despite the efforts of colonial authorities to enforce
marriage and sexual norms of propriety, numerous settlers and self-identified
Puritans attached more meaning to the approval of their relationships by their
neighbors and community than by the authorities. Moreover, as Godbeer
explains, serial monogamy caused by widowhood or desertion was a
widespread practice in colonial America, thus further calling into question
the permanence of marriage and the validity of public ceremonies. Yet
another point of disagreement between the American population and its
leaders was the propriety of premarital sex. In the view of many settlers, as
had been long been condoned by the English tradition, premarital sex was
seen as legitimate when the couple was committed to marry. This went
against the position of New England authorities, which like the British ones,
tried to enforce the idea that official marriage was a prerequisite for marital
sexuality. In a statement that echoes contemporary debates on abstinence,
Godbeer comments that

[t]he campaigns waged in British America by those who

sought moral reformation amounted to a culture war,
pitting different conceptions of sexual and marital etiquette
against each other. Popular customs and attitudes persisted
throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
despite attempts by church and state to impose quite
different ideals. […] Words such as marriage meant
different things to different people: whereas clergymen
understood marriage to involve a public ceremony in the
presence of an authorized official, some settlers saw neither
public ritual nor official validation as a prerequisite for
marital respectability. 9

Hence the Puritan leaders who argued for a moral reformation had to strike a
compromise with the diverging vision of other settlers, and accommodate to
 Claire Greslé-Favier 5
______________________________________________________________
constraints such as the shortage of church and public officials to celebrate
formal marriages. Still, throughout the Puritan era and until the 18th century,
church and public authorities tried to alter public acceptance of premarital
sexuality through speeches, prosecutions and public punishment. It is only
towards the end of the 18th century that local courts, more concerned about
commercial and financial issues, progressively ceased to deal with moral
enforcement, leaving this to families and neighbors.
Through customs like “bundling” that allowed young people to
experience physical contact before marriage under parental supervision,
premarital sexual desires were largely condoned by public opinion, in spite of
the attacks of the clergy against it. Bundling was seen by many families as
preferable, as it allowed them to know who was involved with their daughters
and who could be forced to marry them in case of pregnancy. Along with the
loosening of Puritan influence and of parental authority, the 18th century saw
a steady increase in premarital pregnancy. As family, church and community
control became more and more difficult to enforce, public opinion became
sensitive to the greater risks faced by young women who could not expect
that marriage would necessarily follow a premarital pregnancy. Moreover,
whereas in the past sex ratios favoring women had made it easier for them to
marry and remarry, the inversion of these ratios made it increasingly more
difficult. With the growing urbanisation and the departure of young people
from the country to factories, the risks faced by women would only increase.
Whereas earlier they had been concerned with the morality of both
sexes, public discourses at that time started to focus on female chastity.
Moreover, as Godbeer argues:

Widespread rape during the Revolutionary War had

exacerbated public anxiety about the sexual dangers facing
young women, while the emphasis within republican
ideology upon women’s role as moral exemplars reaffirmed
the need to protect female virtue […] the sustenance of
public and private virtue became tightly interwoven during
the closing decades of the century, which in turn gave new
significance to discussion of courtship and sexual
politics. 10

Hence women, now considered more “moral” and self-controlled than men,
were deemed indispensable in helping men achieve self-control and maintain
moral order in a new republic where, without the authority of the king,
people might focus on instant and personal gratification only. Though this
vision did not immediately engender the idea that women were devoid of
sexual desire, historian Nancy Cott argues that inevitably “passionlessness
was on the other side of the coin which paid, so to speak, for women’s
6 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
admission to moral equality.” 11 Thus the nineteenth century middle-class
developed the ideal of female “passionlessness” and moral superiority with
its correlate the “fallen woman.” As historians D’Emilio and Freedman
underlined

[i]n the past, as long as she repented, the woman who once
sinned - like a male transgressor - could be reintegrated
into the community. Now, however because woman
allegedly occupied a higher moral plane than man, her fall
was so great that it tainted her for life. 12

Though this double standard would continue to lead to heavier consequences

of premarital promiscuity for women, it was primarily the males on which
pro-abstinence discourses focused during the nineteenth century, as will be
shown in the coming section.

3. Abstinence Discourses in the Victorian Era

In his book Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th
Century, historian J. P. Moran explains that the idea of female
passionlessness had the correlating notion that chastity was an easy task for
women, as they went directly from the parental home to their husbands’. On
the contrary, men who were considered to have overpowering sexual urges
and who faced a longer period of independence needed all the possible help
to remain chaste. Consequently, most nineteenth century pro-abstinence
discourses, while applicable to women, were primarily targeted at men.
In her History of Celibacy historian Elizabeth Abbott presents the
British arguments in favor of male chastity:

In late-Victorian England, proponents of respectable

gentlemanly chastity elaborated a nonmedical rationale,
based on a current economic model. It proceeded from a
general idealization of self-control in all spheres and
argued that, like fiscal continence, sexual continence was
good and could be achieved through self-control and
sublimation, preferably by industrious use of time. The
result of this sort of celibacy would be the accumulation of
capital. Incontinence, on the other hand, was bad and
provoked too early marriages and poverty. 13

Along similar lines “the Male Purity Movement”, an original American

discourse on male chastity, was elaborated in the 1830s by men like
Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham, creator of the Graham cracker,
educator William Alcott, and medical doctor S. B. Woodward. Abbott argues
 Claire Greslé-Favier 7
______________________________________________________________
that those authors of advice books advocating chastity were concerned about
the changes caused in American society by the greater number of male
youths who left the countryside and the authority of their parents to work in
urban factories. The leaders of the “Male Purity Movement” feared that the
newfound independence of those youths would lead to the erosion of
“discipline, manhood and morality.” 14 To help young men left to themselves
and exposed to the multiple and particularly sexual temptations of the
modern city that would inevitably lead them to immorality and poverty, the
Male Purity Movement advocated a strict code of behavior. They believed
that chastity, as Moran explains, was critical to character building, which was
achieved “by mastering in all areas of life [the] too-human propensity for the
easy path and immediate gratification.” 15 In their view, complete chastity
before marriage was a matter of will and self-control. If it was not adhered to,
there would be dire consequences. The Male Purity movement

preached temperance, vegetarianism, moral reform, and

chastity before marriage. Alcohol and rich, spiced foods
overstimulated and led to eroticism, and eroticism, often
self-administered, corrupted, caused mental illness, disease,
and the decay of the entire society. 16

Sexuality was not judged as completely negative but the representatives of

the Male Purity movement contended that “semen should be expended solely
for propagating children and otherwise stored up as energy to be directed to
the higher things in life.” 17 This argument was rooted in the idea, dating back
to the Greek physician Hippocrates, that semen was a vital fluid, like blood,
stored only in limited amount in the body and which, if squandered, would
lead to degeneracy and death. Hence, masturbation was considered lethal, as
well as leading to insanity. As for sexual intercourse, it was acceptable only
within marriage and then only a limited number of times a year (about once a
month) as more would put the man “at risk of early death because each ounce
of lost semen equaled four ounces […] of precious blood.” 18 Finally, at
around forty-five years of age, sexual activity should be altogether
renounced, as enough sperm had been lost. To help men through this difficult
practice of self-control the Male Purity Movement advocated the
consumption of bland food, among others Graham crackers and Dr. John
Harvey Kellogg’s breakfast cereal to “subdue eroticism.” 19 This movement
remained successful only until the 1860s, but the warnings against
masturbation persisted well into the 20th century.
Another short-lived vision of sexuality and self-control that
flourished in the late 19th and early 20th century also used chastity as a means
to differentiate between “civilised” Anglo-Saxons and “uncivilised”
immigrants. This vision urged sexual control even within marriage as to use
8 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
sex “for mere pleasure was supremely selfish and betrayed the continued
presence of the brute within the man.” 20 The ideal of sexual respectability
was thus used to create a new aristocracy and came to be seen as an inherent
Anglo-Saxon quality, the sign of racial superiority. On the contrary sexual
indulgence was seen as leading to racial degeneracy.
Though reasons to justify the need for premarital chastity would
evolve throughout the 20th century, it continued to be the standard of
behavior expected from young people.

4. 20th Century Abstinence Discourses

The concept of adolescence as a separate period in life was created
at the beginning of the twentieth century by the psychologist G. Stanley Hall.
Moran explains that although Hall condemned the sexual repression of the
19th century and did not consider children and adolescents as sexually
“innocent”, in his view, chastity still played a crucial role in this phase of
human development. In view of the fact that puberty occurred earlier and
marriage later, Hall believed that the prolonged period of chastity thus forced
on youths was to be used to build character and virtue.
This idea was reinforced by the campaign against venereal diseases
and prostitution led by Social Hygienists in the first two decades of the
twentieth century. Moran writes that for Social Hygienists, the epidemic of
venereal diseases needed to be counteracted by a return to chastity, which
had been undermined by the corrupting influence of modern society and
education. If children were educated in a scientific way, they thought, they
would be able to make sound health choices and remain chaste before
marriage. But their wish to bring sex education to the schools was met by a
considerable opposition from groups who thought that children were innately
innocent and would be corrupted by information on sexuality. The Social
Hygienists, in a pattern reproduced decades later by pro-abstinence authors
Meg Meeker and Tim and Beverly LaHaye, opposed this by arguing that
given the corrupted state of the modern world, the question was not any
longer if children would get sexual information but rather, from whom. A
timely scientific sexual education would thus do much less damage than
silence and information obtained secretly from unreliable and immoral
sources.
The teachings offered by the Social Hygienists were limited to
reproduction and venereal diseases. One of their goals was to dispel “the
fallacy of male sexual necessity” 21 - the idea that not having sex might
endanger men’s health or “hurt” them physically - which in their view fueled
prostitution. For them, the same standards of morality applied to women and
men, though they focused their efforts more heavily on the latter, still
convinced that chastity was harder for men to achieve.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 9
______________________________________________________________
One of the main challenges faced by this “scientific” movement was
the difficulty to ground the need for chastity outside of religion. This could
only be done as long as chastity was considered the norm by society, but this
would change in the 1920s. The main argument in favor of sexual education
thus became the fear of venereal diseases. This fear was reinforced during the
First World War, as a result of the high rate of venereal diseases discovered
in the military and, later on, the civilian population. However, the methods
used to answer this problem were not only education and chastity but also the
medical protection provided to soldiers. Progressively, the appearance of
efficient cures for venereal diseases would make it a poor argument for
promoting chastity. Though most Americans in the 1920s and later were still
averse to teenage sexuality, the liberation of women and youths as well as the
increase in the use of contraceptives and in divorce made it more and more
irrelevant to demand chastity from the population at large.
Consequently, a new argument in favor of premarital abstinence had
to be found. This argument used the recent expectations of sexual fulfillment
within marriage that came out from the differentiation between reproduction
and sexuality and the rise of psychoanalysis. Abstinence proponents thus
argued that premarital sex endangered sexual and emotional adjustment
within marriage. This notion, held in the Family Life Education classes of the
1950s, is still at the core of contemporary pro-abstinence discourses and was
in the 1960s still supported by the feminist Mary Calderone, creator of the
liberal Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
(SEICUS).
Created in 1964, SIECUS’ major objective was to make information
on sexuality widely available. It promoted a more positive view of sex and
tried to underline the importance of pleasure and well being in this
experience. However, as Moran underlines, breaking from the tradition of sex
education as disease prevention was a difficult task, as STDs still provided
the major ground for sex education, which often amounted to little more than
information about the negative consequences of premarital sexuality.
Moran therefore highlights the irony of the attacks launched by
conservative Christians (the LaHayes among them) on SIECUS which they
saw as promoting promiscuity and providing “intercourse education”, as they
dubbed it, in spite of the fact that

SIECUS had risen to popularity largely on the strength of

its hostility to teenage promiscuity, venereal disease,
pregnancy, and all-around misbehavior. Like sex education
curricula in general, SIECUS’s materials were heavily
imbued with sexual warnings, moralistic stories, and
statements of support for conventional morality. 22
10 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
Conservative Christian attacks, while clearly exaggerated, were strategically
extremely efficient and contributed to the strengthening of the Religious or
“New” Right through a shift in emphasis from communism to “family” and
“morality” issues.
With the advent of the sexual revolution, the 1970s saw a shift in
public opinion on the issue of premarital sex. More and more Americans
were endorsing premarital sex and its correlate, cohabitation, though, as
Moran underlines, in lesser numbers when asked specifically about teenagers.
Marriage was “losing its privileged position as the sole site for sexual
relations.” 23 At the same time SIECUS became part of a movement to protect
teenagers’ access to contraception and sex information. To support this cause,
sexual liberals created the myth of a teen pregnancy epidemic, arguing that to
protect young women, and by extension society, from poverty, the inevitable
outcome of teen pregnancy, contraception and abortion should be made
easily accessible. However, this epidemic was turned against its creators, as
conservatives used it to emphasise that contraception and abortion were not
the remedy but the cause of the problem, as they encouraged teens who
should not be sexually active to be so.
With the AIDS epidemic, the 1980s brought a new task for sexual
educators. Moran argues that from that time onwards, conservatives could not
ignore the need for sexual information any more and had to define a new
strategy through abstinence curricula. Though conservatives had long
claimed that sex education programmes encouraged sexual activity, they did
not effect a revolution with their own programmes as “a 1989 survey found
that nine out of ten educators were [already] teaching that abstinence is the
best alternative for preventing pregnancy and STDs.” 24 Moreover, as Moran
underlines:

[…] despite their desire to teach abstinence only because it

is right morally, conservative educators harked back to the
earliest sex hygienists, who could not resist pointing out
that God had conveniently arranged life so that morality
and hygiene were indistinguishable. 25

This desire can also be found in the LaHayes’ writings which use the
fear of STDs and pregnancy to convince young Christians of being abstinent,
in spite of the fact that the religious argument should suffice. The opposition
of some conservative Christian groups, like the Family Research Council
(FRC) to the Gardisal vaccine, which helps prevent Human Papillomavirus
(HPV, a sexually transmitted virus which causes a majority of cervical
cancers), also witnesses the extent to which pro-abstinence discourses rely on
STDs. This point was underlined in 2005 by the scientific magazine the New
 Claire Greslé-Favier 11
______________________________________________________________
Scientist, in an interview of FRC spokesperson B. Maher on the Gardisal
vaccine.
“Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,” sa[id]
Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading
Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that,
because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as
effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such
as HIV. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could
be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence
to engage in premarital sex,” Maher claim[ed.] 26

Thus Maher suggested that without the threat of HPV, which ruled out
condoms as an efficient protection against STDs, abstinence education would
become inefficient. Paradoxically, by thus presenting STDs as the major
reason to abstain, some conservative Christians undermine their own stance
on premarital sex as morally wrong and condemned by God, suggesting that
this latter point might not be enough to justify abstinence.
But the question remains open as to whether or not sex education of
any kind can in any way convince teens to be abstinent or to protect
themselves. Moran concludes his book by the insightful contention that
sexual education programmes, whatever their strategy, have limited chances
of succeeding, as teens’ sexual behaviors are mostly determined by their
social environment, and very little by sexual education.

The sex educator’s expectation that students will respond

rationally to classroom knowledge is a peculiarly middle-
class ideal. […] Their faith in education is generally
justified, however only insofar as the students share their
social background. Because young people of higher
socioeconomic status are more oriented toward the future
than their less advantaged peers, they may be more likely to
change their behavior in response to new knowledge. […]
To students who lack this future orientation, who find the
question of where they will be in five or ten years a matter
of fatalism or indifference, an education based on future
consequences has little meaning. If receptivity to sex
education is socially conditioned, then an educational
programme by itself will have little tangible effect on those
students most at risk for the ills associated with adolescent
behavior. 27

Moreover, in Moran’s view, the American vision of teenage sexuality is one

that is far from being unproblematic,
12 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________

by causing a wider dissemination of sex education

programmes, the “epidemics” of teenage pregnancy and
AIDS multiplied the possible battlegrounds for the culture
wars, but they did little to change the terms of the debate
over sex in the schools. Sex educators have always shown,
for example, a propensity for conflating moral issues with
matters of health and illness, and sex educators and their
opponents in the AIDS era continue to mix morality with
medicine. In this approach, they reflect a general American
tendency in the twentieth century to conceive of sexuality
and adolescence primarily in terms of danger. Teenage
pregnancy and the AIDS epidemic have buttressed a
peculiarly American disposition to view adolescent
sexuality as a hazard, and intensified the impulse for
educators to regulate adolescent desire. 28

The right of teenagers to sexual activity is indeed far from being established
in America, and teenage sexuality is increasingly surrounded by notions of
danger and irresponsibility. As underlined by sexuality researcher Deborah
Tolman and sociologist Jessica Fields, most abstinence-only programmes
present the consequences of sexual behavior as

inevitable and innumerable: ruined reputations, broken

hearts, humiliation, HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies,
genital herpes, and death. This narrative, common among
abstinence-only educators, casts sexuality only in terms of
dire consequences. According to this cautionary tale, sexual
behavior is fundamentally and essentially risky for youth,
and any instruction suggesting the possibility of anything
other than a painful outcome is irresponsible and
dangerous. 29

Teenage sexual behaviors are the focus of fears that overlook the fact that
youth behaviours might not be that separate from those of adults (as many
adults would like to think) and mirror tendencies already present in the
population at large.
As professor of English James R. Kincaid noted in the late 1990s in
his book, Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting, contemporary
American culture is still pervaded by the 19th-century concept of childhood as
an asexual period clearly separate from adulthood. This became particularly
visible in the child molesting paranoia of the 1980s and 1990s, spread
through the media and spectacular trials like the McMartin preschool case
 Claire Greslé-Favier 13
______________________________________________________________
(1983-1990) or the Megan Kanka case in 1994. It popularised the vision of
innocent children as being permanently surrounded with predators coming
from outside and within the family, such as molesters, pornographers,
satanists, abductors, incestuous fathers, etc. In Kincaid’s view this paranoia,
though apparently focused on protecting children was in fact focused on a
fantasised innocent child rather than any real children, who are today at much
greater risk of starvation and poverty than sexual abuse. This construction of
the innocent child was so powerful that it even extended to individuals who
barely qualified as children anymore. Referring to the trial of a school teacher
who allegedly had sexual intercourse with one of her pupils, Kincaid explains
that through the discourse surrounding the case, the “victim”, 16-year-old
Alan,

[a] smart and active older adolescent is shrunk into a child,

a generic “essence-of-child,” by this cultural story,
remolded as passive, innocent, and guileless. His actual
age, activities, particularities are melted away to fit our
needs. Alan’s sexual activity in particular is fashioned as
unwilled, forced unto him or drawn from him
“unnaturally.” 30

Instead of acknowledging the possibility that a sixteen-year-old might be

sexually attracted to an older teacher, the “cultural story” preferred to
refashion Alan as a “victim,” an innocent child in spite of his age and
personality. Discourses of child-molestation force this sexual innocence on
children. This, in spite of all the evidence that children are not “innocent” and
can hardly be in an “oversexualised” society that makes them a privileged
object of erotic projection. As will be shown further on, pro-abstinence
discourses also use the image of the innocent child and the fear of
molestation extensively, and though they acknowledge the fact that the
adolescent has sexual urges, they try to maintain part of his/her innocence by
refusing him/her the right to act sexually.
But what purposes does such a distinction - extensively used by
conservatives - serve, between sexual adulthood and asexual childhood?
Kincaid argues, among other explanations, that “recognising children as
sexual beings means recognising one’s own children that way, which in turn
may force us far too close to incestuous ponderings.” 31 Though relevant, this
explanation can only account in a very limited way for the insistence laid by
abstinence proponents in particular and conservatives in general on picturing
children as sexually innocent. Hence, it is important to note that the innocent
child serves wider functions than merely sexual ones.
14 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________
The idea of children as innocent appeared during the Romantic era
with Rousseau’s notion of children as pure and uncorrupted by the adult
world. Kincaid explains that thus
the modern child was deployed as a political and
philosophical agent, a weapon to assault what had been
taken as virtues: adulthood, sophistication, rational
moderation, judicious adjustments to the ways of the
world. 32

It is only in the early twentieth century that this innocence clearly became
sexual, and though Freud and Hall started recognising the sexual dimension
of children, they respectively tempered it by the notion of latency, or by
explaining that sexual activity during adolescence was dangerous to healthy
physical and mental development. As previously mentioned, this vision of
teenage sexuality as hazardous still pervades American culture.
Another function of childhood’s innocence is its ability to justify
censorship and repression, as witnessed by the campaigns to censure
pornography on paper or on the web, explicit TV programmes or
schoolbooks, as well as campaigns to allow public access to pedophiles’
police files.
This issue of power, power to protect or power to control the
beginning of sexual activity and its legitimacy is at the heart of pro-
abstinence discourses throughout the centuries. Through abstinence-before-
marriage, control is established over all beings who do not inscribe
themselves in the frame of heterosexual matrimony, be it unmarried youths,
gays, or cohabiting couples. Conversely, lifelong abstinence in early
Christian times could provide an escape from this type of control. Abstinence
also served and continues to serve to reinforce a number of hierarchic
relationships. In the Catholic Church, for example, it serves to assert the
authority of the celibate priest over his flock. For all religious authorities,
defining religious marriage as the prerequisite for sexual activity ensures
their role as social authorities and moral arbiters. Moreover, abstinence
education and the differentiation it makes between adults and children also
reinforces the power of adults to protect innocent youths from immorality,
physical and mental corruption, STDs, pregnancy or abuse, as well as
emotional and academic failure. Finally, in some cases abstinence education
is also used to promote gender stereotypes and hierarchies by affirming, for
example, men’s allegedly greater sexual needs and status as breadwinners
and women’s foremost focus on romance and motherhood.
While today’s pro-abstinence discourses draw on and are rooted in a
long tradition of promotion of premarital chastity, the contemporary defense
of sexual abstinence by conservative Christians and the Bush administration
displays some unique features.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 15
______________________________________________________________
In the past three decades, the political lobbying of conservative
Christians was not limited to abstinence, but also included opposition to
abortion, gay rights, and pornography, yet it was nonetheless an innovation in
abstinence advocacy in US history. The influence of churches in imposing
sexual norms has been eroding since the 18th century, and in the 19th century
the promotion of abstinence had mostly been the work of social reformers
and medical authorities. But in the past three decades, in reaction to the
sexual revolution, conservative Christians brought back religion in the field
of abstinence promotion. In spite of a traditional refusal of political
involvement, fundamentalist Christians started lobbying Congress, thus
initiating a new trend in politics and in abstinence advocacy.
Though the past three decades, beginning with the Reagan era, saw
important victories for conservative Christians regarding sexual matters, the
Bush administration marked an exceptional presidential commitment to
conservative Christian sexual norms. In fact, the open support of this
administration to conservative Christian sexual agendas, like the opposition
to abortion, gay rights and premarital sex, as well as the apparently high
personal commitment of the president and many of his appointees to these
issues, exceeded those of previous Republican administrations. In the case of
abstinence-only education, such support at the presidential level can be said
to be unique and might remain so. It was even pushed so far as to deny the
rejection by the majority of the US population of abstinence-only education
and to deliberately ignore and dismiss the scientific proofs of its inefficiency
as a public health and welfare policy.
Whereas previous generations of abstinence education proponents
were faced with the challenge of having to find new grounds for defending
their cause when faced with medical progress and ideological changes, the
contemporary abstinence movement is the first to be faced with hard
empirical evidence of the inefficiency of its approach. What remains to be
seen is the viability of abstinence as a method of sex-education in spite of this
evidence.
Notes
1
R Radford Ruether, Christianity and the Making of the Modern Family,
SCM Press, London, 2001, p.38.
2
Ibid., p.34 and E Abbott, A History of Celibacy, Da Capo Press, Cambridge,
2001.
3
Radford Ruether, op. cit., p.35.
4
ibid., p.74.
5
ibid., p.75.
6
ibid., p.78.
7
ibid., p.78.
16 Pro-“Sexual Abstinence Before Marriage” Discourses in US History
______________________________________________________________

8
R Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore and London, 2002, p.4.
9
ibid., p.9.
10
ibid., p.279.
11
N F Cott, ‘Passionlessness: An Interpretation of Victorian Sexual Ideology,
1790-1850’ in N F Cott and E H Pleck (eds), A Heritage of Her Own, Simon
and Schuster, New York, 1979, quoted in J D’Emilio and E B Freedman,
Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1997, p.45.
12
D’Emilio and Freedman, op. cit., p.70.
13
Abbott, op. cit., p.201.
14
ibid., p.203.
15
J P Moran, Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th Century,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 2000, p.7.
16
Abbott, op. cit., p.203.
17
ibid., p.204.
18
ibid., p.204.
19
ibid., p.204.
20
Moran, op. cit., p.6.
21
ibid., p.49.
22
ibid., p.186.
23
ibid., p.198.
24
ibid., p.214.
25
ibid., p.215.
26
D MacKenzie, ‘Will Cancer Vaccine Get to All Women?’ in
NewScientist.com, 18 April 2005, viewed on 22 June 2007,
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500>
27
Moran, op. cit., pp.222-223.
28
ibid., p.216.
29
Fields and Tolman, op. cit., p. 67.
30
J R Kincaid, Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting, Duke
University Press, Durham and London, 1998, p. 31.
31
J R Kincaid, Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture,
Routledge, New-York and London, 1994, p.26.
32
Kincaid, Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting, Duke
University Press, Durham and London, 1998, p.15.
 Chapter 2
“Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes

The next four chapters present the corpus of pro-abstinence

discourses investigated in this work to facilitate the understanding of the core
of the book, which analyses all these texts in parallel. To explain from which
angle these texts are written, each of these chapters looks at their authors,
their authors’ background, as well as the texts’ structures and major themes.
For each type of text, an overview of the issues they tackle is provided, most
of which are underlined generally and analysed in details further on. The
presentation of these texts is organised from the more “marginal” to the more
“mainstream” types of pro-abstinence discourses. Though these discourses
differ in the emphasis they put on religion, moral values, public health or
welfare related issues, each chapter underlines how they all are, in their
support of abstinence, taking part in similar discursive strategies.
Before turning to the presentation of the first texts, it is necessary to
define some of the vocabulary employed by their authors, in particular the
LaHayes, who inscribe themselves in a fundamentalist religious tradition.
The LaHayes are “fundamentalist Christians” and also define themselves as
“evangelicals.” Those two terms, though they have become familiar through
the media in the past thirty years, are difficult to define and can be confusing,
as they do not stand for homogeneous groups and tend to overlap. To clarify
them I will use the definition given by Nancy T. Ammerman, who presents
American fundamentalism in an extremely clear and functional manner.
The term “fundamentalist” comes from a series of essays entitled
The Fundamentals, published between 1910 and 1915, which sought to
defend traditional protestant beliefs against the attacks of modern society and
modern scholarship best represented by Darwinism and the 19th century
German critique of the Bible.
Evangelicals, on the other hand, define themselves through their
personal relationship to Christ. For them “only an individual decision to
follow Jesus will suffice for salvation.” 1 Evangelicals also have to be
witnesses and proselytes of the necessity to change one’s life and receive
Christ intimately in order to “win souls” on his behalf. This experience of
religious conversion is often defined as being “born again.”
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, very similar realities
were subsumed under the terms “fundamentalist” and “evangelical.” 2
However, as Ammerman explains,

as orthodox people began to organise for survival in a

world dominated by the nonorthodox, two significantly
different strategies emerged. Seeking a broad cultural base
for their gospel, one group saw benefits in learning to get
18 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
along with outsiders. They did not wish to adopt the
outsiders’ ways, but they wanted to be respected. They
began, especially after World War II, to take the name
“evangelical” for themselves. Billy Graham can be seen as
their primary representative. The other group insisted that
getting along was no virtue, and they advocated active
opposition to liberalism, secularism, and communism. This
group retained the name “fundamentalist.” 3

Following Ammerman the central features of fundamentalism in

North America can be summed up as follows:
- Evangelism: similar to evangelicals, fundamentalists are “saved” or
“born-again” and attempt to “save” as many souls as they can.
- Inerrancy: fundamentalists believe that salvation can only be achieved
through faith in an “inerrant Bible.” 4 Inerrancy is defined by the
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology as the belief that when

all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the
Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is
entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether
relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life
sciences. 5

Consequently, “the Bible can be trusted to provide an accurate description

of science and history, as well as morality and religion” 6 or of the
creation of the world.
- Premillennialism: fundamentalists also look to the Bible for signs of their
destiny, especially in the prophecies. Ammerman explains that most
contemporary fundamentalists are “pre-Tribulation dispensational
premillenarists,” a theological approach centred on the idea of the
Rapture 7 and which will be explained in greater detail further on.
- Separatism: “fundamentalists insist on uniformity of belief within the
ranks and on separation from others whose beliefs and lives are suspect.” 8
They tend to live in rather close communities to avoid being
“contaminated” by non-believers and adhere to strict rules of behavior.
However, the requirement to save “souls” forces them to reach out to non-
Christians in an attempt to convert them.

Throughout this book I have chosen to use the term “conservative

Christians” to describe the ideological group to which most pro-abstinence
writers and their audience belong. This term, also used by sociologist
William Martin in his book, With God on Our Side, The Rise of the Religious
Right in America (1996) as well as by professor of English Julia Lesage and
 Claire Greslé-Favier 19
______________________________________________________________
media specialist Eithne Johnson in the collective volume Media Culture and
the Religious Right (1998), includes both evangelicals and fundamentalist
Christians. My choice was motivated by the fact that it is more inclusive than
terms like “Religious Right” or “Christian Right” which both refer to the
political and social movements derived from the worldview shared by
conservative Christians.
The texts presented in this chapter were written by Tim and Beverly
LaHaye, a couple of conservative Christian activists, who are well known for
their writings on sexuality targeted at their fellow believers.
Tim LaHaye was born in 1926 in Detroit, Michigan. In 1950, he
received a BA from the Christian Bob Jones University. According to the
Tim LaHaye Ministries website, he also “holds a Doctor of Ministry degree
from Western Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Literature degree from
Liberty University” 9 founded by the late Moral Majority founder and
conservative minister Jerry Falwell. In 1958, the LaHayes settled in San
Diego where Tim LaHaye was, for twenty-five years, the pastor of Scott
Memorial Church.
Tim LaHaye is the founder of a number of organizations and
Christian initiatives among them, Family Life Seminars, Inc., that focuses on
family counseling. He

founded two accredited Christian high schools, a school

system of 10 Christian schools, Christian Heritage College,
and assisted Dr. Henry Morris in the founding of the
Institute for Creation Research, the nation’s foremost
exponent of creationist materials. 10

His wife and he are both currently sitting on the board of trustees of Liberty
University..
LaHaye also created the Time LaHaye Ministries and the Pre-Trib
Research Center, which seeks to “encourag[e] the research, teaching,
propagation, and defense of the pretribulational rapture and related Bible
prophecy doctrines.” 11 Pretribulationists’ beliefs are mainly based on a
reading of the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and of the Book of
Revelation in the New Testament. The apocalyptic vision they derive from
those texts goes as follows: before the second coming of Christ, the
Christians then alive will be “raptured,” meaning, bodily transported to
heaven. Christians who converted after “the Rapture” will have to go through
a period of trial, persecution and intense suffering called the Tribulation,
which should last from three and a half to seven years, depending on the
interpretations. After this time will be Christ’s second coming. English
professor Linda Kintz helps us understand the appeal of this apocalyptic
reading of the Bible for conservative Christians like LaHaye:
20 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
The generic apocalyptic narrative includes an eschatology,
a discourse about the events that will lead up to the last
days. Michael O’Leary argues that apocalyptic narratives
share certain characteristics: a sense of history as a divinely
predetermined totality, a sense of pessimism about the
present and the conviction of an imminent crisis, and a
belief in the judgment of evil and the triumph of good. 12
They also imply the eventual triumph of a transcendent
theological meaning which provides a rhetorical solution to
the problem of evil on both a rational and a mythical level.
And as Elaine Pagels argues, ‘the faith that Christ has
conquered Satan assures Christians that in their own
struggles the stakes are eternal, and victory is certain.
Those who participate in this cosmic drama cannot
lose.’ 13,14

These elements are important to understand LaHaye’s pessimistic vision of

contemporary culture which, as we will see later, he rejects as “permissive”
and “immoral.”
To help change this culture, Tim LaHaye also became very involved
politically. He was, for example, one of the founding board members of the
Moral Majority created in 1979 by Jerry Falwell, and of the very secretive
conservative organization, the Council for National Policy (CNP). He also
founded the now-defunct American Coalition for Traditional Values
(ACTV), which received, during the 1984 presidential campaign, “a $1
million grant from a White House fundraiser to conduct a voter registration
drive that added several thousand new voters to the Republican rolls.” 15 In
1986, Tim LaHaye dissolved the ACTV following “the revelation by Mother
Jones magazine that one of the organization’s biggest supporter was the
Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church [which] damaged its
credibility.” 16
Yet it is as a bestselling author that Tim LaHaye is today most
famous. His wealth and his still-growing fame stem from the pretribulational
Left Behind series of novels that he co-authored with professional writer Jerry
Jenkins. In an interview to People Magazine, LaHaye explained that the idea
of these books came to him as “sitting on airplanes and watching the pilots,
I’d think to myself, ‘What if the Rapture occurred on an airplane?’” 17 From
this question, LaHaye imagined an apocalyptic storyline based on an account
of the Rapture and of the Tribulation. It was then used by Jenkins, who from
the general ideas proposed by LaHaye for each volume, wrote a “biblical”
thriller set in modernity with cell phones and high-technology. According to
Newsweek the LaHaye-Jenkins duo outsells Stephen King and John Grisham
and its last volume
 Claire Greslé-Favier 21
______________________________________________________________
sold almost 2 million copies even before its March
publication; it’s still tied for No. 2 on The New York
Times’s list - which doesn’t count sales at Christian
bookstores. In all, the “Left Behind” books have sold more
than 62 million copies. 18

For clues of who those 62 million readers are, Newsweek journalist D. Gates
explains that 71 percent of the readers are from “the South and Midwest, and
just 6 percent from the Northeast […]. The ‘core buyer’ is a 44-year-old
born-again Christian woman, married with kids, living in the South.” 19 It is
difficult to assess the extent to which the readers of LaHaye’s books share his
beliefs, but the commercial success is indisputable. The series even generated
derived products like a children’s version, movies and a video game.
Tim LaHaye is also renowned, though to a lesser extent, for
numerous other non-fiction writings about family life, self-control, or books
against feminism, leftist ideas, or homosexuality as well as Bible
commentaries. His first important publishing success was the sex-advice
book he co-authored with his wife in 1976, The Act of Marriage: The Beauty
of Sexual Love. According to the book’s publishing house, Zondervan, the
sex-advice books by the LaHayes have been so far purchased by 2,250,000
readers. In this book, the LaHayes advise Christians on how to achieve a
fulfilling sex life. Though this stance might appear unusually progressive for
fundamentalist Christians, the LaHayes’ advice only concerns marital
sexuality and constantly reasserts the traditional patriarchal structure of the
family. The vision of the couple relationship that the LaHayes derive from
their literal reading of the Bible is well represented by the following passage
from The Act of Marriage:

God designed man to be the aggressor, provider, and leader

of his family. Somehow that is tied to his sex-drive. The
woman who resents her husband’s sex drive while enjoying
his aggressive leadership had better face the fact that she
cannot have one without the other. 20

However, the issue of leadership in the life of the married couple of

Tim and Beverly LaHaye does not seem to be as straightforward as this quote
seems to infer. Beverly and Tim LaHaye have been married for more than
fifty years and have had four children together. But Beverly LaHaye is not
merely the wife of Tim LaHaye, or the mother of his children, as the
positions they defend in their writings might suggest. She is author and co-
author of approximately twenty books like The Spirit Controlled Woman
(1976), Who Will Save Our Children? (1991), The Desires of A Woman’s
Heart (1993) and The Strength of a Godly Woman (2001), or The Act of
22 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
Marriage and Raising Sexually Pure Kids, which she wrote with her
husband. She is also the prominent founder and life president of the
conservative women’s organization, Concerned Women for America (CWA),
which focuses on the defense of six “core issues”:

Family: CWA believes that marriage consists of one man

and one woman. We seek to protect and support the
Biblical design of marriage and the gift of children.
Sanctity of human life: CWA supports the protection of all
innocent human life from conception until natural death.
This includes the consequences resulting from abortion.
Education: CWA supports reform of public education by
returning authority to parents.
Pornography: CWA endeavors to fight all pornography
and obscenity.
Religious liberty: CWA supports the God-given rights of
individuals in the United States and other nations to pray,
worship and express their beliefs without fear of
discrimination or persecution.
National sovereignty: CWA believes that neither the
United Nations nor any other international organization
should have authority over the United States in any area.
We also believe the United States has the right and duty to
protect and secure our national borders. 21

This last point may appear less in keeping with the more religious and moral
concerns of conservative Christians. In fact, it derives from the belief
recurrently promoted by Tim LaHaye in his writings, that the UN might have
a “corrupting” influence on the nation, for example by requiring it to conform
itself to a definition of the human rights that would include abortion or
euthanasia, or demanding more secularism from federal institutions.
Some of the particularly controversial issues defended by CWA are:
its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and its defense of the
literal biblical vision of man as “the head” of his wife and family; its anti-
abortion positions; its support of programs that aim at bringing homosexuals
to heterosexuality through faith and prayer; and its condemnation of books
like the Harry Potter series which, according to the organization, draws
children to witchcraft and paganism.
At the root of the creation of CWA is, according the organization’s
website, Beverly LaHaye’s reaction to a television interview of the feminist
Betty Friedan, in which Friedan apparently said that she represented a great
number of women in America, a claim with which Beverly LaHaye could not
agree. She argued that “Betty Friedan d[id]n’t speak for me and I bet she
 Claire Greslé-Favier 23
______________________________________________________________
d[id]n’t speak for the majority of women in this country.” 22 LaHaye thus, as
retold by feminist writer Susan Faludi, vowed “to rally other ‘submissive’
women who believe, like her, that ‘the women’s liberation movement is
destroying the family and threatening the survival of our nation.’” 23
While it is not devoid of bias, the presentation Faludi provides of
LaHaye nonetheless reveals interesting aspects of her life and personality.
For example, she underlines the fact that hearing the remark of Betty Friedan
in 1978 is not what started Beverly LaHaye’s “anti-feminist” activism. At
that time, she was already a prominent speaker in the Christian community.
She was directing the Family Life Seminars with her husband, hosting a
television and radio show, and in 1976 she had written her first self-help
book The Spirit Controlled Woman, as well as The Act of Marriage, together
with her husband. According to Faludi she also worked for years as a teletype
operator for Merrill Lynch when her children were still small, and hired a
black single mother to take care of her household. Today, Beverly LaHaye is
one of the most successful female leaders on the conservative scene. Her
organization claims over 500,000 members. She directs CWA, presents a
radio show, writes, sits on the board of Liberty University, and defends
conservative values on television and in numerous meetings. This is a far cry
from the picture she promotes of the traditional housewife and closer to that
of the successful career woman whom she targets as the “enemy” of the
traditional family.
This apparent paradox is reinforced by Faludi as she quotes passages
of Beverly LaHaye’s The Spirit Controlled Woman that echo the concerns
over female self-fulfillment within and without the family raised by Betty
Friedan in The Feminine Mystique. 24 The realisation that women might need
more than their household and family to be fulfilled brought Friedan and
numerous American women to feminism, however Beverly LaHaye found
another way to emancipate herself. She decided to commit herself to
“traditional family values” and created CWA, an activism that could not be
objected to by conservative males as it was of tremendous help to their
politics. Indeed, as Linda Kintz suggests:

[…] this valorisation of mothering within a religious

community whose members increasingly participate in
political activism […] also ensures that there are women
available for such activist work. 25

Leading conservative Christian organizations like CWA, the Christian

Coalition, or the “trendier” Independent Women’s Forum have shown a
remarkable capacity to use the potential for personal investment of these
housewives in conservative causes and have thus developed an efficient
national grassroots support. Such organisations feature programs to train
24 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
activists in public relation and political strategy so that they can run for local
positions, especially school boards. As mentioned before, this especially
concerns women who do not work, as they have more time for this kind of
investment. Moreover, by dealing with issues of more direct concern to
themselves and their families, it is easier for traditional housewives to justify
investing so much time in activities outside the home. Activism becomes an
extension of their nurturing and mothering tasks, as they do so to protect their
children and families. 26 With her organisation’s particular focus on women,
Beverly LaHaye has successfully tapped into this extensive resource of
committed activists and potential readers of her female-targeted Christian
writings.
In 1976, with The Act of Marriage 27 the LaHayes became the most
visible advocates of what sociologist Janice M. Irvine calls “the sexualisation
of Christian evangelicalism.” 28 The idea of a book of sexual advice written
by fundamentalist Christians may seem unusual as religious fundamentalism
is often associated with a negative view of sexuality. However, if this
negative vision is still promoted by some conservative Christians, others like
the LaHayes saw the need, after the sexual revolution to renew their
discourse on this question. As Irvine explains, in the 1970s evangelicals

and by extension the Christian Right, entered a new phase

in sexual politics. Instead of a movement only opposed to
the sexual culture, conservative evangelicals and
fundamentalists also developed a proactive movement for
sexual change. In the sixties sex education battles these
groups had spoken against sex with the angry voices of
censors. By the mid-seventies, however, many of them had
found a different voice that celebrated sexuality. They
began to speak about sex not simply to oppose social
change, but also as therapists, educators, even sexual
confidants. And they built their own alternative sexual
industry. 29

As mentioned earlier, the growing interest of conservative Christian writers

for sexual fulfillment constituted a mechanism of defense. If sex was being
talked about everywhere, Christians also needed to provide believers with
religiously appropriate sources of information on sexuality to counter the
“immoral” influence of secular sources. Sex needed to be talked about by
Christians, for Christians, before believers, and especially children, got
information on sexuality from “depraved” secular sources. As explained by
the LaHayes in the opening of The Act of Marriage,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 25
______________________________________________________________
[m]ost Christian books on [sexuality] skirt the real issues
and leave too much to the imagination; such evasiveness is
not adequately instructive. Secular books, on the other
hand, often go overboard telling it like it is in crude
language repulsive to those who need help. In addition,
such books usually advocate practices considered improper
by biblical standards. 30

To prevent such practices from spreading in the evangelical community,

fundamentalist Christian leaders needed to send a clear message of what is
“proper” or not, and be open enough in their discourses on sex to leave no
space to the “imagination,” or gaps that might be filled by secular literature.
Therefore the LaHayes decided to accept the offer of a publisher to write a
book of sexual advice for Christians. With this book they became forerunners
of a new trend in fundamentalist discourses about sexuality and thus
paradoxically took part in the sexual revolution that they, still today, so
staunchly reject. In the steps of another evangelical sex-advisor, Marabel
Morgan, the LaHayes defended in their book the revolutionary idea that
sexual pleasure was not evil and was in fact intended by God for Christians to
enjoy.

God is the creator of sex. He set our human drives in

motion, not to torture men and women, but to bring them
enjoyment and fulfilment. […] What kind of God would go
out of His way to equip His special creatures for an
activity, give them the necessary drives to consummate it,
and then forbid its use? Certainly not the loving God
presented so clearly in the Bible. […] When we look at it
objectively, we realize that sex was given at least partly for
marital enjoyment. 31

This shift towards a positive vision of sex and the focus on the
development of more egalitarian sexual relationships in the couple can,
according to Linda Kintz, be explained as a way to provide greater incentive
to marriage. The guarantee of a fulfilling sex life is used to attract to
matrimony men who, in the LaHayes’ view, might not be so prone to it, and
to maintain within it women who no longer systematically depend on their
husbands for economic survival. 32 Therefore, the LaHayes also dwell on
female sexual satisfaction and the qualities men require to develop and
optimise it. They acknowledge the fact that, for too long, women’s need and
capacity for pleasure was underestimated. The LaHayes contradict popular
stereotypes of marriage as a routine that inhibits sexual drives, on the
contrary, they argue, through the spiritual communion with God it provides,
26 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
marriage enhances pleasure. Christians can therefore find great benefits in
getting and remaining married. The LaHayes even assert that Christian
couples have better sex, since they are not “obsessed” by it like other
people. 33
In their attempt to provide Christians with sex advice open and clear
enough to really help them with the difficulties they might encounter, they
deal with subjects like frigidity, impotence or menopause as well as “sane
family planning.” They also describe sexual organs and processes with
drawings, using scientific terms and, for example, advise women on muscular
training to help strengthen their vaginal muscles after pregnancy or when
they become older.
Not surprisingly, the LaHayes’ book generated controversy in their
community. Some Christians criticized them for what was seen as an
“unseemly emphasis on sex.” 34 Indeed, as Tim LaHaye explains in the
introduction to The Act of Marriage, the decision to write the book was not a
light one, and a number of their friends advised them against it. Yet, after
prayers and what they interpreted as signs from God, they decided to do it.
Irvine agrees that there was

danger in speaking openly about sexuality, and indeed

LaHaye did incur some criticism for being too liberal by
refusing to outright condemn birth control for married
couples. But ultimately he did not ruin his reputation. That
he and his wife Beverly remain prominent Christian right
leaders speaks […] to the cultural legitimacy that sex
counseling acquired among evangelicals and
fundamentalists. 35

Other criticisms came from sexual liberals who opposed the very patriarchal
vision of the couple defended by the LaHayes. Indeed, while some of their
positions, on female sexual pleasure or birth control for example, can appear
quite progressive, the framework of sexuality that they advocate still remains
traditional and heteronormative. Men are still defined as having more
important sexual needs that women have to fulfill in order to “reward” them
for their breadwinning duties.
For the LaHayes, sexuality is defined in a binary manner: on the
one-hand marital sexuality that is “holy” and intended by God for the purpose
of reproduction but also for the enjoyment and the strengthening of
matrimonial ties; and on the other hand all the other expressions of sexuality,
extra-marital, homosexual, pre-marital, which are defined as “evil.” Quoting
the Bible extensively, the LaHayes propagate a patriarchal view of the family
in which men are “leaders” whose wives and children should obey. The
world that they represent in their writings is limited to white middle class
 Claire Greslé-Favier 27
______________________________________________________________
traditional Christian families who attend church regularly and live in socially
and culturally homogenous neighborhoods. The aim of life in this context is
to worship God and have a family, since the Lord asked believers to “be
fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), while women take care of their children
and their husbands in particular by fulfilling the latter’s sexual demands.
Raising Sexually Pure Kids: How to Prepare Your Children for the
Act of Marriage was originally published in 1993 as Against the Tide:
Raising Sexually Pure Kids in an Anything-Goes World and was revised in
1998. It follows in the tracks of The Act of Marriage, and presents parents
with practical advice to raise their children according to the principle of
premarital sexual abstinence. As is the case with their previous book, the aim
behind writing Raising Sexually Pure Kids is to counteract the influence of
“secular” sexual values. The LaHayes argue that today

more than ever before, children need their parents to accept

their role of family sex education instructors. This book
will equip you for that role. The best way to ensure that
your children share your moral values is to teach those
values to them. Then they can be fortified by your church
and other Christian influences. But good sex education
should always begin at home. Some one (sic.) is going to
teach your children about sex. This book is designed to
equip you, the most important person in your child’s life, to
be that teacher. 36

In this case, teaching teenagers and children about sex is not done primarily
to help them understand the changes taking place in their bodies, but rather to
counteract the other discourses that modern society exposes them to by
putting parents back in control of their children’s sexual education. Hence,
the LaHayes conceived this book to provide parents with extensive medical,
scientific and moral information so they can be the best possible “Christian”
sex educator for their children. 37
As suggested in one of the sections of Raising Sexually Pure Kids’
table of contents, 38 parents should try to learn as much as they can about
sexuality so that “they know more than their children” and remain an
uncontested authority on the subject. A task which, the LaHayes are aware,
becomes more and more difficult in a multimedia society, but is therefore
even more necessary. Christian parents have to overcome the prejudices they
might have about teaching their children about sex, in spite of the feeling that
talking about it might encourage children to experience it. The strategy of the
LaHayes goes against this commonly-held notion by promoting discourse as
a means of prevention. For them, as children will inevitably be exposed to
sexual images in the media or in public schools, avoiding sexuality at home is
28 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
not an efficient strategy any more, as it gives free hand to “immoral”
discourses. On the contrary, parents should oppose these “immoral”
messages by a stronger discourse which will teach their children an
alternative “Christian” vision of sexuality that can be opposed to the secular
vision as the only “appropriate” one. The LaHaye’s book therefore devises a
strategy to enable parents to do so.
Raising Sexually Pure Kids is divided into four major parts. The first
part, “A Call to Virtue”, 39 deals with the ideological positions of the LaHayes
and defines the approach and aims of the book. It provides an outline of the
general advice on children’s sexual, moral and religious education that they
develop, for example: “provide them two loving role models,” “start early
teaching your children about sex,” “keep them out of public school sex
education classes,” “teach them moral values,” “keep them active in your
church youth group,” “help your children select their friends,” “warn your
children about the joys and dangers of sexual attraction,” “provide them with
clear guidelines for dating,” “help them make a formal commitment to
virtue,” “watch for signs of sexual involvement,” “don’t make them delay
marriage too long” or “surround them with prayer.”
The second part of the book, “What Young Children Need to Know
About Sex,” 40 provides guidelines and pedagogical materials, like drawings,
to teach children about sexuality from the moment they start asking questions
to thirteen years of age. It is mostly devoted to technical aspects of
procreation, the reproductive organs, sexual intercourse, puberty and
menstruation. It also deals with more complex issues like “sexual identity”
that is, the one that “God gave you at birth [which] is determined by your
sexual parts,” 41 since for the LaHayes “heterosexuality is God’s design;
homosexuality an abomination or a perversion of that design.” 42
Masturbation and nocturnal emissions are also dealt with. The most
important advice that the LaHayes give in this chapter is to be open to
children’s questionss and never to reject them but rather answer them in the
most honest and straightforward way. They give examples of possible
questions children might have and possible ways to answer them with respect
to Christian appropriateness.
“How To Teach Your Teens To Be Sexually Pure” 43 is the third and
most important part of Raising Sexually Pure Kids. Going beyond “sexual
education,” it deals with “abstinence education” and the strategies parents
can develop to preserve teens’ “purity” until marriage. Chapter VII again
takes on the methods of sexual education but in a clearly gendered way. It is
articulated around two sections, “Father’s Questions To Sons” and “Mother’s
Questions To Daughters,” which present the main sexual issues teenagers
have to deal with at puberty, like sexual arousal, masturbation (only for boys)
or teen pregnancy. Each of these sections is followed by another one:
“Reasons You Can Give Your Son for Waiting to Have Sex” and its
 Claire Greslé-Favier 29
______________________________________________________________
equivalent for daughters. Here again the emphasis is on dialogue. An
emphasis which sometimes sounds very much like the one propagated by
secular “liberal” sexual educators and psychologists. Parents are advised to
talk with their children about sex as well as morality and abstinence. They
should not wait too long, or they might be too late. Even if this is so, they
should not give up the dialogue and should remain open. Parents should be
relaxed, to make teenagers feel comfortable. They should not criticise but
listen to what teens have to say to make them feel that they can open up
without running the risk of being judged. The LaHayes also advise parents to
be shockproof, as teenagers can be deliberately provocative, to test limits.
Rather than criticising teenagers’ pronouncements, parents should ask them if
what they say is really what they think or feel about this question. Parents
should initiate the dialogue on sexuality, since their children might be afraid
to do so. 44 For the LaHayes, keeping the “conversational door” open is of
utmost importance to pass on to children the moral values one wants to see
them applying to their sexual life. 45 Part of this ongoing dialogue is the
“commitment to virtue” that the LaHayes advise parents to make their
children take in Chapter VIII.
This “commitment to virtue” or “virginity/chastity pledge” is an
important concept in pro-abstinence rhetoric. It is used by numerous pro-
abstinence educators and organisations like, for example, True Love Waits,
the abstinence program of the Southern Baptist Convention. The LaHayes
recommend that when children turn fifteen or sixteen, depending on the age
decided on as appropriate to start dating, parents should make them take this
pledge. They suggest that the parent of the same sex as the child bring him or
her to a restaurant for a “big night” that will remain special for both of them.
This exceptional and pleasurable time will be set aside to discuss sex and
make sure that the child knows everything s/he needs to know about it and
that s/he shares his parents’ values on the subject. This time should also be a
time of prayer, during which the parent presents his/her child with the
reasons for waiting to have sex, and makes him/her take a commitment
before God to remain virtuous until marriage. This commitment can be
symbolised by a “virtue ring” or “pendant” that the parent gives the child.
This piece of jewelry will become a “keepsake” that the child will be able to
give his/her future spouse on his wedding night to underline his successful
commitment.
To parents who might think that this is a lot of fuss for something
that should not require discussion, the LaHayes explain that:

A commitment to virtue is so important today because of

the enormous pressures young people face. Many of these
pressures are much stronger and different than the
pressures we faced when we were their age. Today’s kids
30 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
are encouraged to throw away their virtue and express their
sexuality. We believe that a formal commitment to virtue is
both needed and a powerful tool that can help safeguard
your teen from premarital sexual involvement. When
emotions get out of control and threaten to overpower
common sense, a strong resolve or commitment to virtue
can prevent your teen (and your family) from experiencing
enormous heartaches. 46

An interesting detail here, characteristic of conservative rhetoric, is the

idealisation of the past that is made and the demonisation of the present. The
LaHayes were past seventy when they wrote this book, but the parents they
are writing for, on the contrary, must have been teenagers in the 1970s.
Though it cannot be denied that today’s society is filled with sexual
messages, the way they overlook the charged sexual atmosphere of the 1970s
seems more rhetorical than realistic. Referring to an ideal time gone by is a
constant trope of conservative discourses, a way to underline the
“immorality” and “permissiveness” of the present. The insistence on a
present state of moral decay echoes apocalyptic narratives that are very
important for fundamentalists in general and Tim LaHaye in particular.
Moreover, as quoted further above, the apocalyptic narrative features “a
sense of pessimism about the present and the conviction of an imminent
crisis, and a belief in the judgment of evil and the triumph of good.” 47 By
demonising the present, fundamentalists confirm their belief that the
Judgment is close.
In such a decadent world, the LaHayes are aware that not every
child, especially if they have not been “born again” yet, will remain virtuous.
One of the problems of the chastity pledge is that it excludes children who
were already sexually active. Therefore, abstinence proponents needed to
devise a strategy for these children so that they do not go on being sexually
active thinking that the “sin” being already done they had nothing to lose
anymore. That is why, the LaHayes explain, it is never too late to become
“virtuous again,” labeled by other abstinence proponents as “secondary/born-
again virginity.” Teens who “repent” and take a “secondary virginity pledge”
“can become virgins again in the sight of God. Once they’re forgiven, it is as
though they have never sinned.” 48 However, those teens might still have to
struggle with guilt, as “admittedly, God can and does completely forgive
their sin of fornication, but it is impossible to return their virtue. When it’s
gone, it’s gone.” 49 This idea of “secondary virginity” is therefore an
ambiguous one as, on the one hand, “sinful” children should not be
abandoned, but on the other hand, secondary virginity still has to be
presented in a negative light so that it remains an “emergency” option.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 31
______________________________________________________________
To avoid the need for secondary virginity, the LaHayes provide a
chapter with clear “Guidelines for Dating” that parents should apply to
teenagers. To a “liberal” eye, most of this advice seems old-fashioned and
extremely strict, exerting a control over teens’ lives that some would consider
illegitimate and dangerous. It has to be acknowledged that some appear very
difficult to apply in contemporary US society. Their recommendations range
from the proper age for dating, fifteen years old and over, to the interdiction
of “French kissing” as it would, according to the LaHayes, inevitably lead to
more physical intimacy. They also advise parents of daughters “to schedule a
predating interview with Dad” 50 with the boy who asks her out. Parents
should always know where their kids are and what they are doing. Teens
should never be left in a house alone without an adult. The section “avoid all
petting, caressing or other physical expressions of affection that lead to
sexual arousal” 51 includes many details, so teenagers can be ready for any
possible situation that might threaten their commitment to virtue. Until high-
school graduation, teens are only allowed to double-date, to prevent too much
intimacy. Moreover, Christian teens should only date other “Christians,” for
as the LaHayes explain:

One cardinal principle clearly stated in the Word of God is:

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians
6:14). Dating is a yoke of fellowship that can eventually
lead to marriage. We can help our young people avoid the
emotional trauma of ever having to decide, ‘Should I marry
this unsaved person I am very much in love with or should
we break up?’ by refusing to let them go out in the first
place. 52

To be able to put all this advice into practice, a homogeneous environment is

indispensable. There lies the importance of Christian communities and
Church schools or home-schooling, which will help keep the environment of
children under control to an extent that could not be attainable if they go to a
public school and live in mixed suburbs. As Linda Kintz explains:

[…] as the upper classes now send their children to elite

private schools and determine their neighborliness
according to property values, evangelical Christians retreat
to communities of other born-again Christians, where they
open private religious schools or school their children at
home. 53

Surrounded by people who share the same values and will have the same
dating guidelines, it should be reasonably easy to apply the LaHayes’ advice.
32 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________
But for Christians who do not benefit from such an environment, it seems to
be much more difficult, as their parental authority will run the risk of being
questioned by their children’s confrontation with different educational rules.
Chapters X and XI deal with what the LaHayes consider as the
differences between male and female sexuality and response to sexual
stimulation. They insist on warning girls of boys’ stronger sexual drives and
of the fact that, contrary to girls, they are very likely to be more attracted to
sex than to romance. Girls are to be taught that they should date respectable
boys, and avoid promiscuity or public displays of affection to protect their
reputation. The chapter closes by the following cautionary note:

Girls need to know that they have the most to lose.

Therefore, they must be taught that they are the moral cop
in their relationship. She must know when to say no! and to
insist he take(sic.) her home right now! Until the day she
marries, she must always remember that she has the most to
lose. 54

Boys do not have as much to lose, as they cannot get pregnant. Still, they
must be told that they should be the “moral cop” in the relationship as well.
Though men are “high-octane sexual creatures,” this can be no excuse, as
they can be seduced only if they put themselves in the situation to be
seduced. All the more so that “God holds men accountable to be the spiritual
leader in all couple relationships, both before and after marriage.” 55 The
LaHayes also insist that dating should hinder neither their spiritual growth
nor their education as they will one day have the responsibility to lead and
provide for a family.
To give their advice a legitimacy coming from teens themselves,
Chapter XII, “What Christian teens say about sex that their parents need to
hear,” synthesizes group discussions that the LaHayes had with Christian
school pupils in Virginia, Maryland, California and Oregon. The main
conclusions they draw from those discussions are very much in agreement
with their own recommendations. They explain, for example, that a majority
of teens wished that their parents would insist more on sexual education and
abstinence at an earlier age, and that the people by whom they would like
best to be taught about sex are their parents. They also “complain[ed] that
their [sex education] classes were too explicit” 56 in particular in the case of
teens attending public schools. They agreed with most of the dating rules
suggested by the LaHayes and regretted that most of their parents did not set
any and thought that a “commitment to virtue” was a very good idea and was
very much needed given the sexual pressures they are exposed to in
contemporary society.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 33
______________________________________________________________
The final and fourth part of the book brings together several other
themes related to children and sexuality. Starting with sexual abuse and what
the LaHayes call “the myth of safe sex,” moving on to questions like “what
to do if your daughter becomes pregnant?” or the special concerns that single
parents might have regarding their children’s sexual education. Those
chapters are followed by a glossary explaining terms ranging from
“adolescence” to “Y chromosome,” as well as an indictment of the
“abstinence” teaching of SIECUS and a few useful “Biblical Passages
Forbidding Adultery and Fornication.”
The LaHayes’ book is centered on the idea that children should
remain abstinent on religious grounds, adding that STDs only point to the
fact that God did not intend for Christians to have sex with anyone else than
their spouse. Pediatrician Meg Meeker, on the contrary, centers her defense
of abstinence on the threat of STDs. Similar to the LaHayes, she deals with
themes like the necessity of love and family connectedness to “protect”
children, but focuses her argumentation primarily on medical concerns. It is
this different approach that is presented in the next chapter.

Notes
1
N T Ammerman, ‘North American Protestant Fundamentalism,’ in L Kintz
and J Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious Right, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998, p.57.
2
ibid., p.59.
3
ibid., p.59.
4
ibid., p.59.
5
W A Elwell (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Academic,
Grand Rapids, 2001.
6
Ammerman, op. cit., p.60.
7
ibid., p.61.
8
ibid., p.63.
9
Timlahaye.com, ‘Tim LaHaye Biography,’ 2004, viewed on 13 march
2007,
<http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/index.php3?p=bio&section=Bio
graphy>
10
ibid..
11
Timlahaye.com, ‘Pre-Trib Research Center,’ 2004, viewed on 13 March
2007,
<http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/index.php3?p=pretrib&section=
PreTrib%20Research%20Center>
12
S D O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
34 “Religious” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: The LaHayes
______________________________________________________________

13
E Pagels, The Origin of Satan, Random House, New York, 1995, p.181.
14
Kintz, op. cit., pp.8-9.
15
Diamond, op. cit., p.72.
16
W Martin, With God on Our Side, Broadway Books, New York, 1996,
p.270.
17
Leftbehind.com, ‘Dr. Tim LaHaye Bio,’ 2007, viewed on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.leftbehind.com/channelbooks.asp?pageid=1267&channelID=22
5>
18
D Gates, ‘Religion: The Pop Prophets,’ Newsweek Online, 24 May 2005,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4988269/site/newsweek/>
19
ibid..
20
T and B LaHaye, The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998, p. 34.
21
Concerned Women for America, ’Our Core Issues,’ January 2007, viewed
on 13 March 2007, <http://www.cwfa.org/coreissues.asp>
22
S Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women,
Anchor Books Doubleday, New York, 1991, p.248.
23
ibid., p.248.
24
B Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, W W Norton, New York, 1963.
25
Kintz, op. cit. 1997, p. 36.
26
See L Kintz, ‘Clarity, Mothers and Mass-Mediated Soul: A Defense of
Ambiguity,’ in L Kintz and J Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious
Right, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.
27
For a more extensive analysis of The Act of Marriage, see Kintz, 1997.
28
J M Irvine, Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United
States, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002, p.81.
29
ibid., p.82.
30
LaHaye, op. cit., p.11.
31
ibid., p.24.
32
Kintz, op. cit. p.67.
33
LaHaye, op. cit., p.32.
34
Irvine, op. cit., p.87.
35
ibid., p.87.
36
T and B LaHaye, Raising Sexually Pure Kids: How to Prepare Your
Children for the Act of Marriage, Mutnomah Publishers, Sisters, 1998a, p.29.
37
ibid., p.10.
38
The end of Raising Sexually Pure Kids features a “Glossary of Sex
Information Parents Need So They Know More Than Their Children.”
39
LaHaye, op. cit. pp.15-59.
40
ibid., pp.63-111.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 35
______________________________________________________________

41
ibid., p.65.
42
ibid., p.65.
43
ibid., pp.115-190.
44
ibid., p.117.
45
ibid., p.117.
46
ibid., p.135.
47
Kintz, op. cit., pp.8-9.
48
R Durfield, ‘A Promise with a Ring to It,’ Focus on the Family Magazine,
1990, quoted in T and B LaHaye, Raising Sexually Pure Kids: How to
Prepare Your Children for the Act of Marriage, Mutnomah Publishers,
Sisters, 1998, p. 144.
49
LaHaye, op. cit., p.24.
50
ibid., p.151.
51
ibid., p.156.
52
ibid., p.151.
53
Kintz, op. cit., p.108.
54
LaHaye, op. cit., p.168, emphasis in the original.
55
ibid., p.175.
56
ibid., p.185.
 Chapter 3
“Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker

Contrary to the LaHayes, Meg Meeker is neither nationally famous

nor written about by academics. She is not a political leader but a single-issue
activist and is probably barely read outside of the conservative community.
Her books are not bestsellers. Epidemics: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids
(2002), for which she is best known, had sold only 6,471 copies by July 2005
according to its publisher, yet her books are often used and referred to by
pro-abstinence organizations and leaders.
I have chosen to include her writings in my analysis as they are very
much respected in the conservative circuit and as they present a significant
trend in pro-abstinence discourses. This trend is based on a medical
argumentation which advocates abstinence as the only 100% safe way to
prevent youths from being infected with STDs or becoming pregnant.
Underlining the failure rates of condoms and their inefficiency in protecting
from STDs like herpes, some doctors like Meeker argue that promoting any
other protection than abstinence is criminal and represents a risk that cannot
be taken regarding children’s lives and health.
The effectiveness of this discourse in general and of Meeker’s in
particular, lies in its grounding in apparently scientific facts. Meeker’s
legitimacy is also established by her position as a pediatrician and mother.
Moreover, she does not appear to be affiliated with any political organization,
which gives her an appearance of neutrality and reliability. As argued by a
researcher of Concerned Women for America:

Meeker has not been tapped by the Bush Administration to

push abstinence-only education in America’s public
schools. She is not a conservative spokesperson for pro-
family organisations paid to decry the ills of risky sexual
behavior and condom distribution. She is a physician, who
stares into the eyes of scared teenagers every day, telling
them they have STDs that are incurable and helping them
cope with the depression that ensues. 1

Still, this alleged neutrality can be questioned by a number of significant

facts. Though Meeker is not affiliated to any conservative organisation, her
books are published by conservative publishing houses such as Regnery,
which claims to be “the nation’s leading conservative publisher.” 2 Moreover,
her third book, Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, 10 Secrets Every Father
Should Know (2006), published by Regnery, features a markedly
conservative agenda of reasserting traditional fatherhood, and is much less
medically oriented. Meeker also contributed to The Focus on the Family
38 “Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker
______________________________________________________________
Complete Book of Baby and Child Care published by Christian publisher
Tyndale (publisher of numerous books by the LaHayes, including the Left
Behind series) and edited by James Dobson’s prominent conservative
Christian organization, Focus on the Family. She also appeared on
conservative TV shows and radio programs like Concerned Women Today,
the radio program of Beverly LaHaye’s CWA; the 700 club, the TV show of
Pat Robertson, founder and former president of the prominent conservative
Christian Coalition; as well as on Dr. Laura, the radio show of the
conservative Jewish host Laura Schlessinger. In 2003 Meeker gave a talk at
the Conservative Political Action Conference, which celebrated the twentieth
anniversary of the defeat of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). She also
participates in conferences given by the Christian pro-abstinence organisation
the Silver Ring Thing, which in 2005 lost its federal funding as it was proven
to promote specific religious values in its abstinence promotion programmes.
Moreover, her book Restoring the Teenage Soul is prefaced by Elayne
Bennett, founder of the pro-abstinence organization Best Friends and wife of
former secretary of education and prominent Heritage Foundation member,
William J. Bennett. Given this significant involvement of Meeker with
conservative and religious leaders and organisations, the ideological
neutrality of her discourses can legitimately be questioned.
The image presented by Meeker is a very reassuring one. Her
pictures, on the cover of her books or on websites, show a smiling blond
woman in her forties. She looks both motherly and professional. Her
curriculum vitae and family life also confirm this comforting image. Meeker
has been a medical doctor for pediatric and adolescent medicine for more
than twenty years and she has a medical practice in Traverse City, Michigan,
with her husband. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and
of the National Advisory Board of the Medical Institute, a pro-abstinence
medical organization founded in 1992 “to confront the global epidemics of
nonmarital pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease with incisive health
care data”. 3
Another aspect which reinforces her credibility is that, as she claims,
she used to advocate birth control. But she explains,

[t]wenty years ago, I wouldn’t have hesitated to prescribe

oral contraceptives to teenage girls. In fact, any form of
birth control was fine with me, as long as my patient used it
consistently. As a young doctor swept away by the message
of ‘safe’ sex, I didn’t know any better. To me, “safe” meant
not getting pregnant. I was so focused on the pregnancy
epidemic that I wrote hundreds of prescriptions for birth
control pills and gave more injections of Depo-Provera
than I care to remember. But today, I think long and hard
 Claire Greslé-Favier 39
______________________________________________________________
about prescribing birth-control pills or Depo-Provera to
kids because this puts them in such grave danger of
contracting an STD. In giving a girl birth control that I
know will protect her from pregnancy, am I inadvertently
encouraging her to pick up a sexually transmitted disease?
And if you might ask, ‘What about condoms?’ read on.
[…] In most cases, the chances of condoms preventing
STDs is almost as thin as the condoms themselves. Hence,
I think carefully about advising teens to use condoms, as
well as other forms of birth control. The risks are just too
high. 4

Meeker argues that prescribing birth-control or condoms to teenagers gives

them the impression that sex is “safe” as long as they use these adequately.
But for her, like for the LaHayes, “safe” sex is a myth. The only means
providing complete protection from STDs and teen pregnancy is abstinence.
Therefore, they argue, parents have to teach their children to remain abstinent
in order to protect them.
The strategy used by Meeker to convince parents and teens can be
qualified of being a “scare tactic.” As will be shown further on, she uses
statistics and gruesome stories of STD-infected patients to scare parents into
demanding that their kids remain abstinent. However, this strategy has been
questioned even by parents who support abstinence education. In January
2005, SIECUS reported that a School District’s Board of Trustees in Nevada
rejected a video created, among others, by Meeker 5 on the grounds that:

“The over-hyped, fear-based tone was felt to be a turnoff

for many teens who most needed to hear the abstinence
message,” […] “Examples of the alarmist format included
blood dripping into a sink when a link was drawn between
teen suicide rates and teen sexuality.”[…] “In several
instances throughout the film, [...] kids could be led to
believe that if you’re sexually active, depression can follow
and also suicide.” 6

Indeed, in Epidemic, the vision of teenage sexuality as “fundamentally and

essentially risky for youth” 7 is constantly reinforced through gruesome
examples and endless catalogues of the potentially tragic medical
consequences of sexual activity. As early as page five, Meeker recounts the
comments of a surgeon who had just operated one of her young patients:

“When I opened her, she had an abdomen full of pus. She

had a tubo-ovarian abscess which had ruptured. I had to
40 “Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker
______________________________________________________________
take her right ovary and her left one [didn’t] look so hot.
Frankly, she’ll be lucky if she pulls through,” he told me.
What [the surgeon’s] findings told me was that Lori had
pelvic inflammatory disease, caused by either chlamydia or
gonorrhea. … This type of infection is always life-
threatening. How had she gotten the infection in the first
place? Whether she had had sex once, twice, five times - it
didn’t matter. 8

The sense of threat conveyed by this quote is representative of the tone of the
whole book the main achievement of which is to emphasise that sex outside
of a committed life-long relationship, which is particularly the case of teen
sex, always carries at the most the threat of death and at the least the
possibility of life-long disabilities be they mental or physical. The discursive
strategies developed by Meeker in her pro-abstinence writings will now be
highlighted in further detail through an overview of her first two books:
Restoring the Teenage Soul: Nurturing Sound hearts and Minds in a
Confused Culture (1999) and Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids
(2002).
Meg Meeker is the author of four books dealing with children’s and
teenagers’ physical and mental well being, two of which are analysed in the
book: Restoring the Teenage Soul: Nurturing Sound hearts and Minds in a
Confused Culture (1999), which mainly deals with teen depression and thus
also targets premarital sex and abstinence, and Epidemic: How Teen Sex is
Killing Our Kids (2002), focused on premarital sex and STDs.
A good summary of the themes and aims of Restoring the Teenage
Soul is provided by Elayne Bennett in her preface to the book:

Adolescence is a time of conflict and confusion for most

young people. Teen friendships and love relationships are
transitory; there is pressure to achieve, to ‘fit in,’ to be
popular and attractive. Many adolescents do not hold
themselves in high regard, and the absence of self-worth
can be a serious handicap which makes them more
vulnerable to negative peer pressure, early sexual activity,
drug and alcohol abuse, and violent and aggressive
behavior. […] Dr. Meeker, a physician practicing child and
adolescent medicine in Michigan, believes that parents
need to see what she sees in her examination rooms:
confused adolescents with emotional and health problems
caused by lack of self-respect, depression, illegal drug and
alcohol use, and sexual activity. […] Meg Meeker
eloquently makes the case that adults must roll up their
 Claire Greslé-Favier 41
______________________________________________________________
sleeves and get involved with their teens. She reminds us
that while teens may want adult privileges, their reasoning
ability and emotional stability are often still those of a
child. In spite of their protest to the contrary, they need an
abundance of parental involvement in their lives. 9

The reasons presented by Meeker for the state of teenagers’ emotional and
physical health are: a lack of parental presence in the home due to long work
days and working mothers; the “culture,” especially the media like movies,
TV series, MTV, music or fashion; the sexual revolution; permissiveness as
well as the lack of moral values and spirituality. Those elements are similar
to the ones presented by the LaHayes’ and, as will be shown later, to those
evoked by the Heritage Foundation and the Bush administration.
They are also at the core of her book, Epidemic, which is organised
along the following structure. Meeker begins by explaining that STDs are an
“epidemic” menacing the nation and causing many more casualties than
citizens are aware of. She then presents a catalogue of statistics and describes
numerous STDs, classifying them in three categories: lethal; “curable but
dangerous”, and “emotional STD.” According to Meeker, “one of the major
causes of depression is sex”, 10 which is why in most cases she considers
depression as a sexually transmitted disease, an “emotional STD.” Meeker
explains that

[t]eenage sexual activity routinely leads to emotional

turmoil and psychological distress. Beginning in the 1970s,
when the sexual revolution unleashed previously unheard-
of sexual freedoms on college campuses across the country,
physicians began seeing the results of this ‘freedom’. This
new permissiveness, they said, often led to empty
relationships, to feelings of self-contempt and
worthlessness. All, of course, precursor to depression. 11

This idea of “self-contempt and worthlessness” pervades pro-abstinence

discourses. It can be related to premarital sex, as in Meeker’s text, but can
also be more widely connected to a lack of “moral values” and religious
beliefs. For conservative Christians an absence of faith in God inevitably
entails a lack of self-esteem, as the individual is not related to something
larger than himself through a loving creator.
In the second part of her book, “The Forces at Work,” Meeker goes
on to explain that protecting children from pregnancy is not equivalent to
protecting them from STDs. She claims that condoms, especially used
irregularly and imperfectly by careless teenagers, are not “safe”, and fail to
protect from numerous STDs like those transmitted by skin contact. Further
42 “Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker
______________________________________________________________
on she underlines the negative effects of the media, MTV, fashion and
advertisement. She concludes this section of her book with a chapter entitled
“High Risk Sex” where she points to the risks of oral sex (a practice she
believes widespread among ever-younger teens); homosexual activity;
multiple partners, simultaneous or not; voyeurism between teens; the
connection between drug and alcohol use and sex; or the dangers of the
internet. In this last chapter she draws the picture, often supported by the
media, of a teenage sexuality reminiscent of “pornography.” Though she
provides statistics concerning the rise of oral sex among teens, her reports of
group sex and voyeurism are only based on rumors, isolated cases, or
shocking examples from the media.
Though Meeker might be right in presenting these tendencies as
widespread, it is to be noted that she nowhere nuances her assertions by
acknowledging the lack of conclusive statistical data on these phenomenon.
On the contrary, she accumulates examples in order to imply that teen sex
can only be “risky” and “inappropriate.” The ambiguity she thus entertains by
blurring the boundaries between empirical facts and personal opinion or “gut
feelings” is one of the central mechanisms of her rhetoric.
Meeker constantly fuels this ambiguity by leading the reader into
considering her writings as scientific and objective when they are in fact very
much tainted by her own moral values and beliefs. An example of this
“moral” positioning can be found in her advice to parents watching TV with
their children:

During scenes where unmarried people are having sex, ask

your kids how much they believe those people value their
bodies, their sexuality. Then let them know that you want
better for your children, that their sexuality, their bodies,
are too important to be shared randomly, even with people
they think they love. 12

While her defense of abstinence is grounded in a medical rationale, making

marriage, and not for example committed cohabitation, a prerequisite for
sexual activity is not a medical but a moral positioning. In making marriage a
prerequisite for sex, Meeker reveals her conservative orientations in a clearer
way than anywhere else in her text. For her, as for the Heritage Foundation,
and as stated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in
the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.”
Meeker’s publisher presents her as a medical doctor, a scientific
authority. The back cover of Epidemic features a short review by Dr. David
Hagar, “Head of Infectious Diseases/University of Kentucky” who writes that
 Claire Greslé-Favier 43
______________________________________________________________
[i]n this shocking book, Dr. Meeker describes the epidemic
proportions of the STD explosion that has erupted in
America. The statistics are startling, the data medically
sound, the consequences alarming and the personal stories
will move you to tears. 13

In this comment the personal dimension of the book is acknowledged but the
emphasis, laid both by the text itself and the position of authority of the
writer, is clearly on the scientific reliability of the book. While throughout
her writings Meeker quotes numerous statistics and apparently scientific
works, she often does not reference them, thus preventing the reader from
checking for him/herself. Meeker establishes herself as a scientific authority,
but her discourse is devoid of epistemological nuance. She presents teenage
sexuality only in negative terms, entirely overlooking its potentially positive
aspects. Besides, her theories are very much grounded in her personal
experience. This would not constitute any ambiguity if her books were
presented as an account of her personal practice as a pediatrician, but her
opinions are often implicitly described as being shared by the medical
community at large. This is the case, for example, in sentences like: “Just ask
any doctor, therapist, or teacher who works closely with teenagers and they’ll
tell you.” 14
Under the guise of “simplifying” psychological theory “into a
workable, understandable fashion for adults who are intent on helping
teens”, 15 Meeker also deliberately blurs the boundaries between science and
“morals.” She integrates in this discourse moral and religious comments that
have more to do with personal beliefs and “common sense” than with the
scientific discipline that psychology is. For example, she explains that most
teens in depression lack what she calls “spiritual intimacy” that she defines as
“[…] an exchange of feelings and experiences with God. It includes the
giving of feelings and thoughts to an invisible deity, believing that God
receives them and responds back.” 16 In so doing, Meeker entertains,
consciously or not, an ambiguity between personal beliefs and empirical facts
that can be considered as an abuse of the readers’ trust. The impression made
by her discourse on the reader is that she is very much convinced of the threat
constituted by teenage sex, thus she might not be aware of the ambiguity of
mixing scientific and personal discourses in the way she does. Yet this
ambiguity, as well as her extensive use of a vocabulary of emotions and fear,
are major assets to reach a conservative audience and are widely used by
conservative authors. Hence the possibility that this discursive strategy might
be consciously elaborated cannot be discarded.
The use Meeker makes of emotions and in particular fear, are well
illustrated by the two following examples:
44 “Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker
______________________________________________________________
Chances are you don’t realize it, but right now, at this very
minute, there is an epidemic racing through the lives of our
teenagers. This epidemic literally threatens their very lives.
I am a pediatrician. I see and treat these youngsters every
day. I’d like you to meet some of my patients. 17
Or,
[a]s I swept the gray drapery surrounding Lori’s emergency
room bed behind me, I was startled by the intensity of pain
I saw on her young face. Her mother said she was having
abdominal discomfort, but clearly she understated the
situation or something had happened on the car ride over.
This was one sick kid. 18

In both of these examples, Meeker deals with medical events in a very

emotional and subjective way. This constant wavering between “neutral”
scientific discourse and an emotional and personal one is a recurring feature
of religious conservative discourses. As Linda Kintz explains,

[t]he intensity of mattering [or commitment], while

ideologically constructed, is nevertheless ‘always beyond
ideological challenge because it is called into existence
affectively.’ 19 And in postmodern America, where
pessimism and a very strategic depoliticisation had become
the norm, affective investments increasingly became the
most valuable political prize: ‘the condition of possibility
for the optimism, invigoration and passions which are
necessary for any struggle to change the world.’ 20 Thus the
conditions of postmodernity described by postmodern
theory - fragmentation, lack of a center, unease, fear - have
proved to be precisely the resources drawn on to construct
popular conservatism’s conditions of possibility. 21

By touching on one of the reader’s deepest fear, the fear for his/her children,
and relating to him/her at an emotional level, Meeker, like the LaHayes, uses
the rhetorical strategy which makes for the success of the Religious Right,
and to which Christian conservatives respond best.
Though Meeker is presented as a medical and consequently
“neutral” source, her discourse revolves around a conservative rhetoric and
supports a conservative ideology actually very close to the LaHayes’ own.
Like them she targets fears that are shared by conservatives and liberals alike,
in particular, the fear of physical or psychological pain associated with sexual
activity, from which most parents would like to shield their children. Her
concerns, like the LaHayes’, are often legitimate, and should not only be
 Claire Greslé-Favier 45
______________________________________________________________
dismissed as conservative “paranoia” but should also question the society at
large. Yet they are framed in a conservative discourse, which in the case of
Meeker attempts to be legitimated by her medical position of authority. The
LaHayes are conservative political and religious leaders and their writings
reflect this status. On the contrary, Meeker is not presented in Restoring the
Teenage Soul and Epidemic as being openly associated with conservative
groups. Her strongest affiliation is to the medical profession. Therefore the
expectations of Meeker’s readers are different from those of the LaHayes’.
By playing with the boundaries between medicine and ideology, Meeker’s
discourse is more ambiguous and thus probably more apt at rallying a wider
audience than the LaHayes’. Though liberal readers could be tempted to
dismiss her books as barely scientific propaganda, the power of the ambiguity
she entertains should not be overlooked as it is one of the major strength of
conservative rhetoric.
One of the most successful examples of this strategy of ambiguity
can be found in the discourse of the Heritage Foundation, which like
Meeker’s, constantly uses apparently scientific research to support the
organisation’s conservative positions, while grounding its core beliefs in
religion and “moral” values. We shall turn to an exploration of this
foundation in the next chapter.
Notes
1
A Vineyard, ‘Protection Teens Are Still Not Getting,’ 19 December 2002,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2944&departm
ent=BLI&categoryid=femfacts&subcategoryid=blicul>
2
See www.regnery.com.
3
Medinstitute.org, ‘Employment or Internship Opportunities,’ 2007, viewed
on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=employment>
4
M Meeker, Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids, LifeLine Press,
Washington, D. C., 2002, p.98, emphasis in the original.
5
M Meeker, P J Warren and M Maxwell Billingsly (narrators), The Rules
Have Changed the Teen STD Epidemic, 2004.
6
SIECUS, ‘State Profile 2005: Nevada,’ 2006a, viewed on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/2005/mandates/NV.html>
7
Fields and Tolman, op. cit., p.67.
8
Meeker, op. cit., p.5.
9
M Meeker, Restoring the Teenage Soul: Nurturing Sound Hearts and Minds
in a Confused Culture, McKinley and Mann, Traverse City, 1999, pp.IX-X.
10
Meeker, op. cit., p.63.
11
ibid., pp.63-64.
46 “Medical” Pro-Abstinence Discourses: Meg Meeker
______________________________________________________________

12
ibid., p.216.
13
ibid., back cover.
14
ibid., p.63.
15
Meeker, op. cit., p.20.
16
ibid., p.27.
17
Meeker, op. cit., p.3.
18
ibid., p.3.
19
L Grossberg, We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and
Postmodern Culture, Routledge, New York, 1992, p.86.
20
ibid., p.86.
21
Kintz, op. cit., p.61.
 Chapter 4
“Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses:
The Heritage Foundation and Rebecca Hagelin

The Heritage Foundation was created in 1973, by a team of young

conservatives, led by Paul Weyrich and Ed Feulner. It was the financial
support of Joseph Coors, president of Coors Beers, that enabled them to
realise the project they had had in mind for several years. Later financial
supporters would also include prominent firms like “Amway, Chase
Manhattan, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Loctite, Milliken, Mobil, Pfizer,
Sears Roebuck, and SmithKline.” 1 The aim of this new political research
organization, or “think-tank” 2 was, according to Weyrich, to

provide some intellectual underpinnings for some members

of Congress who wanted to articulate a different approach
from the Nixon administration. We did not regard the
Nixon administration as conservative on many issues and
we wanted to provide an alternative course. There were any
number of members of Congress who were interested in
taking that alternative course; they just didn’t have the staff
and the intellectual back-up to make that happen. 3

It was this staff and “intellectual back-up” that the Heritage Foundation
wanted to provide. Producing research and policy recommendations in a
format that could be easily digested by congressmen and the media was to be
the main function of the foundation. In 1979, Heritage, close to Jerry
Falwell’s Moral Majority, supported Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.
During Reagan’s two consecutive terms in office the think-tank had its
heyday. Its budget consistently increased as well as the number of its
employees, and nine years after its founding it could boast an annual budget
of $7 million.
Today, the Heritage Foundation is one of the most prominent right
wing think-tanks in Washington. Its permanent research team writes on a
very wide array of topics like agriculture, crime, economy, education, energy
and environment, family and marriage, welfare, internet and technology,
political philosophy, religion and civil society, NATO, foreign policy, and
the study of the economies of the various continents. To promote its ideas,
the Heritage Foundation organises conferences, often featuring members of
Congress or of the government. It also uses its extensive mailing list and
internet website to reach its donors and supporters. One of the foundation’s
major projects was, and still is the Mandate for Leadership. This series of
books of more than 3,000 pages, first published in 1980, then in 1984, 2000
48 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
and 2005, gathers the political recommendations of the researchers of the
Heritage Foundation to the Republican governments taking office. According
to the foundation’s website, President Reagan

gave copies [of Mandate for Leadership] to every member

of his Cabinet. The result: Nearly two-thirds of ‘Mandate’s’
2,000 recommendations were adopted or attempted by the
Reagan administration. 4

Though the Heritage Foundation now presents its relationship to the Reagan
administration in very positive terms, the impact of his presidency was
questioned by numerous conservatives. Many of them felt that the president
had only paid lip service to issues like school prayer, abortion and family
values. They also noticed that Ronald Reagan had actually appointed very
few social conservatives to his administration. Yet, one of the important
impact of the Reagan presidency for the Heritage Foundation in particular
and the Religious Right in general was not what he actually accomplished,
but rather the way he brought conservative Christian agendas in the national
political discourse. In the case of the Heritage Foundation those agendas are
articulated as follows:

To promote conservative public policies based on the

principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual
freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national
defense. Heritage analysts believe that:
The private sector can be depended upon to make better
economic decisions than the public sector in ninety-nine out of
one hundred cases.
Government serves the governed best when it is limited.
Individuals need freedom to exercise responsibility.
Good men and women produce a good society rather than the
reverse.
Peace is best protected through military strength.
America should not hesitate to use its power and influence to
shape a world friendly to American interests and values. 5

As explained by Lee Edwards, adjunct professor of politics at the Catholic

University of America in Washington, D.C., and Heritage Distinguished
Fellow, in his book The Power of Ideas: The Heritage at 25 Years,

the phrase “traditional American values” was not formally

added to Heritage’s mission statement until 1993. As a
matter of policy, the foundation decided in the late 1970s to
 Claire Greslé-Favier 49
______________________________________________________________
concentrate on economic and foreign policy/national
security questions, leaving social issues like abortion, gay
rights, and prayer in the schools in the main to other public-
policy organizations. But by the early 1990s, the decline of
American culture had become so pronounced that Heritage
felt compelled to start a cultural policy studies program. 6

From then on, issues like abortion, gay rights, school prayer and vouchers,
marriage, and sexual abstinence became privileged fights of the Foundation.
All these issues are connected together under a larger one, the defense of the
traditional family. Under the Bush administration, the Heritage Foundation
remained one of the most prominent think-tanks in Washington. Overall it
markedly supported the president and consistently approved his stance on
such important issues as Iraq or federal spending.
A recurring criticism against the Heritage Foundation has been its
lack of scientific reliability. Researching and publishing articles on the major
issues it seeks to promote is the major activity of the foundation; however,
various scholars have questioned the scientific reliability of its researchers’
methods. First of all, the work of the Heritage Foundation specialists is not
peer-reviewed by any exterior observer and their writings often refer as their
major sources to other articles by the foundation’s researchers. Various
scholars and journalists have underlined the weaknesses of the research on
abstinence education produced by the Heritage Foundation. For example, in
several of their articles, Heritage researchers did not mention reliable
scientific objections to abstinence-only programs, manipulated statistics and
distorted other researchers’ claims to support their views. 7 They also used
solipsistic logic instead of science, for example when they derive from the
observation that “sexually active boys are eight times more likely to attempt
suicide than boys who are not sexually active” 8 that there is a direct
correlation between sexual activity and depression. 9 Similarly scholars like
Stephanie Coontz and Nancy Folbre of the Council on Contemporary
Families question the assertion of Heritage’s senior research fellow on
domestic policy, Robert Rector, that “the sole reason that welfare exists is the
collapse of marriage.” 10 They argue that:

The current pro-marriage agenda in anti-poverty policy is

misguided for at least four reasons:
Non-marriage is often a result of poverty and economic
insecurity rather than the other way around.
The quality and stability of marriages matters. Prodding
couples into matrimony without helping them solve problems
that make relationships precarious could leave them worse off.
50 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
Two-parent families are not immune from the economic
stresses that put children at risk. More than one third of all
impoverished young children in the U.S. today live with two
parents.
Single parenthood does not inevitably lead to poverty. In
countries with a more adequate social safety net than the
United States, single parent families are much less likely to live
in poverty. Even within the United States, single mothers with
high levels of education fare relatively well. 11

This view is supported by Scott Coltrane, former president of the Pacific

Sociological Association, who argues that many “political-religious”
organizations “are guilty of oversimplifying and often misrepresenting
research on marriage, divorce and parenting” while the “social evidence on
these topics is much more mixed.” 12 Consequently, the research produced in
abstinence education by the Heritage Foundation needs to be approached
with caution and can be considered to reflect a clear ideological bias.
Abstinence is one of the main domestic issues featured on the
Heritage Foundation’s website. While the site features one article on
abstinence as a solution to out-of-wedlock births from 1995, 13 the rest of the
articles are dated back from 2002 at the earliest, with a steady increase in
their number up to 2005, when the foundation’s involvement in the issue
appears to have waned. This heightened interest at the beginning of the Bush
presidency can be accounted for by the strong investment of the foundation in
the support to the pro-marriage, pro-life and pro-abstinence policies of the
Bush administration. The later decrease in the production of research and
articles on the issue might be explained either by the numerous studies
underlining abstinence education’s inefficiency, which started being
published around 2004-2005, dates at which enough time had passed to
assess these programs; or by the fact that the foundation might have
considered that its objectives regarding this particular issue had been
achieved. However, the Heritage Foundation still features extensive pro-
abstinence data on its main website as well as on a more recent one,
familyfacts.org.
According to Heritage, “abstinence education programs can
substantially reduce teen sexual activity” and are widely popular among
Americans. 14 In the view of its researchers,

[t]eens who are sexually active are more likely to be

depressed and are more likely to attempt suicide. […]Early
sexual activity seriously undermines the ability of girls to
form stable marriages as adults. […] Beginning sexual
 Claire Greslé-Favier 51
______________________________________________________________
activity at an older age, however, is linked to higher levels
of personal happiness in adult years. 15

Moreover, the Heritage Foundation explains that the younger a teen starts
being sexually active, the more s/he is at risk of being infected by a STD
since s/he is likely to have a higher number of sexual partners than people
who start being sexually active at a later age. They also maintain that girls
who start being sexually active younger run a higher risk of undergoing
abortions and of having children out of wedlock. They are also more likely to
become single mothers, and “since single mothers are far more likely to be
poor, early sexual activity is linked to higher levels of child and maternal
poverty.” 16
What is significant here is the link made by Heritage, and already
evoked in Coontz and Folbre’s quote, between early sexual activity, single
motherhood and out-of-wedlock births and poverty. For the Heritage
Foundation, abstinence is a tool in the defense of marriage and of the
traditional family cell that its researchers define as “the basic unit of
society.” 17 The role that abstinence can play in promoting marriage follows
from the Foundation’s vision of poverty and welfare. The think-tank defends
a vision of welfare inspired by “social Darwinism” which sees poverty
mainly in terms of personal failings. In the view of its researchers there is
little “real” poverty in the United States and the majority of the poor are in
this situation mainly because they lack proper moral values and self-
discipline. The main problem caused by this lack of values is out-of-wedlock
births, which cause fatherless children to be raised without proper moral
leadership and thus contribute to a vicious circle of crime, drug addiction,
promiscuity and welfare dependency. Consequently, the Foundation
advocates abstinence as a privileged solution in solving these problems as it
prevents teen-pregnancy, develops self-discipline and encourages marriage.
The present work analyses the pro-abstinence discourses of the
Heritage Foundation through texts from its websites. The two authors most
often referred to throughout the text are Robert Rector, a senior research
fellow on domestic policy at the Foundation, who drafted the definition of
abstinence included in the welfare reform law of 1996, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 18 and
Heritage Vice-president Rebecca Hagelin. While Rector’s articles are mostly
“research” pieces, Hagelin’s are more personal columns on family issues.
Extracts from her book Home Invasion, which in most cases are featured as
articles on the Heritage website, are also used as representative of the
Foundation’s position. Since her writings are extensively used in this book
and are of a much more personal nature than Rector’s, Hagelin herself and
her book are characterised here in greater detail.
52 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
Hagelin is the daughter of pediatrician Dr. Henry Redd and his wife
Alice Faye Redd. She was raised in Florida and attended Troy State
University in Alabama. 19 Hagelin’s mother gave her a strong example of
leadership. She was

president of the P.T.A., the Junior League and the Garden

Club. She was honored as one of 10 outstanding young
women of America at Richard M. Nixon’s White House
and even had her own program on the local Christian radio
station, “The Happy Homemaker.” 20

However, her family discovered in the mid-1990s that Alice Faye Redd had
organised a pyramid scheme that ruined a hundred people of her community
and for which she was sent to jail. The payment of the damages ruined her
formerly wealthy husband. Her family and her defense argued that a mental
disorder was the cause for her behaviour and that she should be sent to a
mental institution rather than to jail. This explanation helped Hagelin cope
with the actions of her mother, who recently died. In spite of this later
problematic family history, Hagelin’s accounts of her childhood provide the
image of the ideal traditional white middle-class family that her writings
defend so staunchly. Today, Hagelin is herself married and the mother of
three teenagers.
Hagelin has had a productive career. She became the director of
public relations for the Center for Judicial Studies in 1983 21 and “helped
develop communication strategies for Pat Robertson and the Christian
Coalition.” 22 In 1986, she took a position as director of communications for
Concerned Women for America. Hagelin devoted several pages of her book
Home Invasion to a eulogy of Beverly LaHaye, who has been an important
mentor for her and who, as early as 1987, gave her “the incredible
opportunity to have a home office” 23 and thus be closer to her children. In
2005, CWA elected Hagelin one of the prominent Evangelical Women of the
Year. The conservative Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute awarded her a
similar honor by naming her one of the twelve Great American Conservative
Women in 2007.
No longer working for CWA, Hagelin is currently vice president for
Communications and Marketing at the Heritage Foundation. The
Foundation’s website publishes her columns along with several conservative
news websites like WorldNetDaily.com, Townhall.com and PatriotPost.us.
According to her own website, Hagelin also worked as a “commentator for
Salem radio,” “a guest co-host of Point of View as well as guest host for
ABC Radio’s WMAL.” 24 She also made numerous appearances on CNN,
FOX news or on CBN’s 700 Club. In 2005 Hagelin’s first book, Home
 Claire Greslé-Favier 53
______________________________________________________________
Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That’s Gone Stark Raving
Mad, was published.
In her book Between Jesus and the Market: The Emotions that
Matter in Right-Wing America (1997), Linda Kintz insightfully analyses the
communication strategies used by Hagelin. She argues that her main asset
lies in her southern familiarity and ordinariness. She describes Hagelin’
appearance on a tape of the Christian Coalition’s Leadership School Series:

Hagelin presents a powerful image for this lesson in press

relations. Dressed in a red dress with white polka dots and
sporting a hairdo that is almost, but not quite, Big Hair, she
looks and sincerely acts out the almost perfectly illustrative
intelligent, decent, white southern woman who does not at
all come across as puritanical or mean or even bigoted; she
could be either from the suburbs or from a small town, and
she is, of course, very nice. Small-town white girls like me
know her well; in fact many of us probably were her at one
time or another. But one could not imagine a more
powerful construction, for she and her message are
anything but naïve. And while a progressive audience
simply ignores the message by laughing at her appearance,
a radical conservative audience with fundamentalist or
evangelical beliefs hears every word of her message about
how to translate biblical principles into an effective media
strategy that takes into account the blindnesses (sic.) and
interests of its secular audience and reporters. 25

She offers a similar image in her writings as well as on the cover of

her book Home Invasion: the image of a white suburban mother.
Issued by the Christian publisher Nelson Current, Home Invasion
features on its back cover recommendations from Tim and Beverly LaHaye
and Laura Schlessinger, who also recommended Meeker’s three books. A
great percentage of Home Invasion is made of columns that Hagelin wrote for
the Heritage Foundation and conservative news websites. It is therefore quite
representative of the whole of her articles since 2002 when she appears to
have started writing for Heritage. Besides, throughout the book she
extensively quotes and refers readers to the research of the Foundation.
Abstinence promotion is only one of the agendas featured in Home Invasion;
however the other issues she deals with in her book, like “parental rights,”
marriage or the “culture war,” are closely connected to abstinence and
pervade pro-abstinence discourses as is explained throughout this book.
54 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
The content of Hagelin’s book is well summed up by its title and by
the four small paragraphs featured on its front cover to explain in what it can
help the reader. Home Invasion offers to assist you in:

- Finding allies in the fight for your child’s

innocence.
- Safeguarding your family from cultural terrorism.
- How moms can set a better tone for their homes.
- Surefire tips to becoming a better father. 26

Similar to the LaHayes’ and Meeker’s, Hagelin’s book stimulates the sense
of being under constant threat and evokes the nostalgic memories of an ideal
past when America was a place where parents could raise their children in a
“moral” environment “free from exposure to ‘adult issues.” 27 Today, she
argues, “cultural terrorists” are menacing American families and homes and
their children’s innocence. Even the suburban middle-class neighborhoods
are not a guarantee of safety anymore. Therefore, evoking the all-American
image of the 19th-century frontier men and women who organized their
wagons in circle at night for protection, she lyrically calls out to American
families:

Moms, dads, grandparents, pastors community leaders,

teachers, this book is for you, it’s for me - it’s for all of us.
It’s to encourage us to draw that proverbial line in the sand,
to reflect on the protective image of the wagons
protectively encircling the fire to create a true safe haven
for our children, and to do that in a real sense, in the
modern culture. It’s to protect our families, our children,
and their futures. Why would we engage in this battle?
Why would we take these bold steps? Because we love our
kids. Because our children are depending on us to protect
them. Because it’s the right thing to do. And because we
can win. 28

The “cultural terrorists” against which families must wage war are, according
to Hagelin and echoing the LaHayes and Meeker, the media, pornography,
sex education, the fashion industry or the lack of religious values. She argues
that these terrorists creep into American homes through MTV, the internet,
movies, advertisement, and fashion, and are guilty for the current state of
“moral” decay of the nation which leads to tragic consequences like the Abu
Ghraib scandal among others. 29 What are the goals pursued by these
terrorists? Make money in most cases, in others to exploit children sexually
by abducting them or using their image for pornographic ends and to promote
 Claire Greslé-Favier 55
______________________________________________________________
the secular value of “diversity.” For Hagelin, in the name of “free speech”
and

“diversity,” the cultural elite in Hollywood, in education,

even some religious leaders, want us to believe that
everything is okay, that no dangers exist, that there is no
such thing as depravity, and to say otherwise is to be
judgmental. They believe that choice is everything - but
that the range of choice must include everything
imagination can create. […] those of us who choose to
provide a protective space of innocence for our children;
who dare to define right and wrong; who seek to preserve
traditional values of decency - well, we’re just bigots who
must be silenced. 30

To counteract the absence of moral values and decency promoted by this

“cultural elite,” Hagelin provides advice and resources to parents throughout
her book.
First of all, parents should be cautious not to literally buy into the
“culture” even if they feel that their children might feel rejected by the
mainstream. She argues that if little girls are dressed provocatively and
children watch indecent movies, it is because parents buy the clothing and let
them watch the movies. For her, parents need to react, be committed parents,
take back the control over their children’s education and not relinquish it to
public schools or the media. This can be achieved in a number of ways,
Home Invasion explains. First of all parents should be really committed to
their faith in God and establish it in their family. They should also get
married and stay married. In this Hagelin follows the pro-marriage agenda of
the Heritage Foundation, the research of which she quotes extensively in her
book to back her points. She explains that children of unmarried parents fare
worse than others. Consequently, she opposes cohabitation and condemns
premarital sex as going against God’s commands. She argues that

America must promote and encourage the inherent value in

strong marriages and families if we are to survive as a
nation. If we as a society continue to promote and casually
accept cohabitation, rampant divorce, sex outside of
marriage, and homosexual partnerships as alternative to
traditional marriage, we can expect more poverty, more
crime, more emotional problems, and more social chaos. 31

Spouses should also, against feminist teachings, maintain traditional

gender roles in their couple relationships as well as in their parenting. For
56 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
Hagelin men and women are different and their roles as mothers and fathers
are not interchangeable. She advises wives to make their husband feel
appreciated and valued as “heroes” for their job as breadwinner 32 and not to
succumb to the feminist “me, myself and I” mindset. 33 As for men they
should not behave like “wimps,” but be “real men” and show their love for
their wives. Rephrasing the opinion of Laura Schlessinger, Hagelin argues
that when “women reject the ‘me first’ mantra of radical feminism and
become more selfless something magic happens: decent men respond in
kind.” 34 Thus, most men are not responsible for being wimps since they are
being inhibited by a wife “acting like Medusa.” 35 Likewise in parenting,
fathers and mothers should preserve their own role as respectively “servant”
and “nurturer” 36 and as moral leader and role model. 37 Yet similar to Beverly
LaHaye, Hagelin’s personal life seems to be in opposition to the conservative
vision of the family she promotes. Indeed, her readers wonder at how she can
humanly manage to be a “traditional” mother and wife with her apparently
busy schedule. Susan Faludi here again provides an interesting insight on the
question in her account of her meeting with Hagelin more than fifteen years
before, when she was working for CWA:

[P]ublicity director Rebecca Hagelin is on the phone with

her husband. “Now, let’s see, the carpet needs to be
vacuumed,” she instructs. “And if you could straighten up
the living room a bit.” It’s past six P.M., and Hagelin is still
at the office. Her husband is at home making dinner, taking
care of their baby and preparing the house for guests that
evening. The Hagelins might have found the blueprint for
their domestic arrangement in an early-‘70s manual for
liberated couples: they split the chores and trade off child
care. “See, I really wanted to have a baby, but I really
wanted to work,” Hagelin says. “I love to work.” She likes
the fifty-fifty arrangement. “That’s the way it is in the ‘80s,
it’s not an either-or situation. It really is possible to have it
all.” 38

For Hagelin it seems to be possible to “have it all” but again only on the
condition of encouraging other women not to attempt it and denouncing the
feminist gains from which she benefits fully herself.
Another crucial piece of advice Hagelin gives to parents is to take
back charge of their children’s education. She explains that this is particularly
important regarding sex-education and school in general. She warns parents
of the “immoral” and “oversexualised” content of comprehensive sex
education and so-called “abstinence-plus” programs and recommends that
they be kept under close scrutiny. Parents should review their children’s sex-
 Claire Greslé-Favier 57
______________________________________________________________
education curriculum and if necessary opt their children out of the course,
even if this decision is unpopular with the child or the teachers. If the entire
curriculum of the school reveals itself to be in disagreement with the parents’
moral and religious beliefs, which can particularly be the case in public
schools, Hagelin recommends private schools. If none is available, parents
should resort to homeschooling. The defense of children’s access to “a
competitive market of public, private, charter, and home schools” 39
regardless of their parent’s income is also one of the issues defended by the
Heritage Foundation.
Parents should also, as recommended by Meeker, control what their
children watch, read, listen to or wear. In order to do so, Hagelin
recommends throughout her book a number of resources available to parents
like internet filters, DVD filters, and “family friendly” publishing houses and
magazines as well as retailers of appropriate clothing. Home Invasion closes
with an almost forty-page-long catalogue indexing resources like
organisations, books or websites dealing with issues like homeschooling,
entertainment, marriage, parenting, prayer or sex. Some of the organizations
she lists are: the Home School Legal Defense Association; the American
Decency Association; Boy Scouts of America; CWA; James Dobson’s Focus
on the Family; the all-male religious organization, Promise Keepers; Shirley
Dobson’s National Day of Prayer Taskforce; the Abstinence Clearinghouse;
and of course, the Heritage Foundation.
In Home Invasion Rebecca Hagelin takes on, in a more personal
manner, the “traditional American values” issues defended by the Heritage
Foundation, many of which were also at the heart of the pro-abstinence
discourse of the Bush administration, as will now be explained.

Notes
1
L Edwards, The Power of Ideas: The Heritage Foundation at 25 Years,
Illinois: Jameson Books, Inc., Ottawa, 1997, p.27.
2
As characterised by British civilization professor Keith Dixon, think-tanks
are organisations “which present themselves as reflection forums, but which
should rather be considered as privileged lobbies for the political activism of
some intellectuals, and as key foundations to influence the economic and
political fields,” K Dixon, Les évangélistes du marché, Raisons d’Agir
Éditions, Paris, 1998, pp.5-6, my translation.
3
Quoted in Martin, op. cit., p.171.
4
A Blasko, ‘Reagan and Heritage: A Unique Partnership,’ June 7, 2004,
viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060704e.cfm>
5
Edwards, op. cit., p.128.
58 “Political” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

6
ibid., p.18.
7
M Ginsberg, ‘The Politics of Sex Education,’ Educational Law and Policy
Forum, 2005, 1, pp. 1-25, pp.10-11; J Ellenberg, ‘Sex and Significance:
How the Heritage Foundation cooked the books on virginity,’ Slate.com.
7 July 2005, viewed on 21 August 2007, <http://slate.com/id/2122093/>;
Kirby, 2002.
8
M G Pardue, ‘Waxman Report Is Riddled with Errors and Inaccuracies,’ 2
December 2004, viewed on 15 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm615.cfm>
9
Ginsberg, 2005, p.14.
10
C Wetzstein, ‘Unwed Mothers Set a Record for Births,’ The Washington
Times, April 18, 2001.
11
S Coontz, and N Folbre, ‘Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy: A
Discussion Paper from the Council on Contemporary Families,’ 28 April
2002, viewed on 10 November 2006,
<http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&e
xt=marriagepovertypublicpoli>
12
S Coltrane, ‘Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in
the Politics of Fatherhood,’ Sociological Perspectives, Winter 2001, 44 (4),
pp.347-418, p.405.
13
J J Piccione and R A Scholle, ‘Combatting Illegitimacy and Counseling
Teen Abstinence: A Key Component of Welfare Reform,’ 31 August 1995,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1051.cfm>
14
M G Pardue, R Rector and S Martin, ‘Executive Summary: Government
Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on
Abstinence,’ 14 January 2004, viewed on 17 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718es.cfm>
15
ibid.
16
ibid.
17
P F Fagan, ‘Marriage and the Family,’ in HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Issues
2006: The Candidate’s Briefing Book, 2006, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/pdfs/BriefingBook2006.pd
f>
18
J Wildermuth, ‘Welfare reform heading back to Congress next year,’ San
Francisco Chronicle, 4 November 2001, p. A11; L Beil, ‘Abstinence
Education Faces an Uncertain Future,’ The New York Times, 18 July 2007,
viewed on 20 August 2007,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/education/18abstain.html?ex=1187841
600&en=a6f6061787e7cf9c&ei=5070>
19
Kintz, op. cit., p.10.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 59
______________________________________________________________

20
F Butterfield, ‘This Way Madness Lies: A Fall From Grace to Prison,’ The
New York Times, 21 April 1996, viewed on 15 March 2007,
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E5D61E39F932A1575
7C0A960958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all>
21
Rwnetwork.net, ‘Rebecca Hagelin,’ 2007, viewed 15 March, 2007,
<http://www.rwnetwork.net/Rebecca_Hagelin>
22
Kintz, op. cit.,p.100.
23
R Hagelin, Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family In a Culture That’s
Gone Stark Raving Mad, Nelson Current, Nashville, 2005b, p.150.
24
Homeinvasion.org, ‘About Rebecca Hagelin,’ 2007, viewed on 15 March
2007, <http://www.homeinvasion.org/AboutTheAuthor.cfm>
25
Kintz, op. cit., p.101.
26
Hagelin, op. cit., front cover.
27
ibid., p.xi.
28
ibid., p. xxi.
29
ibid., p. 4.
30
ibid., p. 18.
31
ibid., p. 81.
32
ibid., p. 89.
33
ibid., p. 91.
34
ibid., p. 92.
35
ibid., p. 92.
36
ibid., p. 151.
37
ibid., pp.173-180.
38
Faludi, op. cit., pp.255-56.
39
Heritage Foundation, ‘Issues: Education,’ 2007, viewed on 16 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/education/>
 Chapter 5
“Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses:
The G. W. Bush Administration
In order to study the pro-abstinence discourses of the G.W. Bush
administration, different types of texts issued by the White House will be
used: extracts of speeches, summaries of policies, legal texts as well as the
content of a governmental website devoted to abstinence, 4Parents.gov.
Before presenting these different texts, this section will take a closer look at
the role of religion in shaping G.W. Bush’s personal life and political views
and at the history of government funding of abstinence programs.

1. A Vision Shaped by Religion?

Numerous journalists and academics have written about G.W. Bush,
and about his religious beliefs in particular. Some have at times questioned
his religious commitment as a mere façade designed to win over the
evangelical electorate. It appears clear that many of the Bush administration’s
policies were crafted to attract conservative Christian voters. While G.W.
Bush’s Christian faith appeared genuine, the debate over the nature of the
religious convictions of the president and their impact on his policies is still
open. While he certainly displayed a strong religiosity while in office, G.W.
never took a clear “conservative Christian” stand on issues like abortion, gay
marriage or creationism but rather entertained an ambiguity which served his
political aims. Some observers have underlined that he also did not identify
himself openly as a “born-again” Christian or an evangelical, in spite of a
religious discourse and a personal religious narrative that appeared to clearly
affiliate him with these religious tendencies. 1 A Washington Post article
summing up the work of various authors on the question explained that
David Aikman,

who was given wide access to Bush’s friends and senior

officials to write “A Man of Faith,” […] concluded that
Bush is “a mainstream evangelical with a higher-than-
normal tolerance of dissent.”
Stephen Mansfield wrote in “The Faith of George
W. Bush” that Bush is “a conservative Christian,” but
added: “On many issues, Bush is less doctrinaire than his
faith would make him appear, and this too is part of the
mystery of George W. Bush.” […]
Tim Goeglein, who directs the White House
Office of Public Liaison and is the president’s official
intermediary with Christian groups, said Bush is an
evangelical but also fits the English theologian C.S.
62 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
Lewis’s definition of a “mere Christian” - someone who
looks beyond denominational lines to the central, common
teachings of the universal church. 2

While C.S. Lewis insisted on the ecumenical nature of his religious views, it
is important to note that his definition of “mere Christianity” as following a
set of absolute doctrines 3 - such as the belief that unbelievers will go to hell
and believers will know eternal life - is today extremely popular within the
fundamentalist Christian community and has been defined by some
commentators as an expression of Lewis’ “proto-fundamentalism.” 4
What the ambiguity of Bush’s religious views was hiding is unclear.
Some argued that he maintained it in order to please conservative Christian
voters without alienating more moderate ones. In this case, it would mean
that his faith had relatively little influence over his policy decisions. 5
However, many observers differed with this opinion. In the same Washington
Post article Rev. Shaun Casey, an assistant professor of Christian ethics at
the Methodist Church’s Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, was
asked

if Bush’s beliefs are so ecumenical and his prayers so

generic, […] do the president’s positions on such matters as
abortion and same-sex marriage really derive from his
faith? And what influence do his religious beliefs have on
his budget priorities or tax policies?
Casey, who went to college in West Texas, said he
recognizes in Bush an “indigenous West Texas evangelical
piety” and thinks “the critics who dismiss him as purely
manipulating religion” are wrong. 6

Similarly, sociologist Barbara Finlay argued, taking the example of the

president’s conservative appointments, that

while many have believed that Bush was making such

extremist appointments to consolidate his conservative
religious base, the fact that in his second term he appointed
such people to more central positions indicates that he
himself wants to promote these views and enact them into
policy and law. 7

The impact of his faith, especially on his foreign policy has been underlined
by the evangelical Christian writer and activist Jim Wallis
 Claire Greslé-Favier 63
______________________________________________________________
America’s foreign policy is more than pre-emptive, it is
theologically presumptuous; not only unilateral, but
dangerously messianic; not just arrogant, but bordering on
the idolatrous and blasphemous. George Bush’s personal
faith has prompted a profound self-confidence in his
“mission” to fight the “axis of evil,” his “call” to be
commander-in-chief in the war against terrorism, and his
definition of America’s “responsibility” to “defend the …
hopes of all mankind.” 8

Likewise former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Ron
Suskind wrote in the New York Times that after 9/11

the faith-based presidency truly takes shape. Faith, which

for months had been coloring the decision-making process
and a host of political tactics - think of his address to the
nation on stem-cell research - now began to guide events. 9

The narrative of G.W. Bush’s religious “conversion” is a famous

one and was retold by Suskind in the same article:

It was in 1985, around the time of his 39th birthday,

George W. Bush says, that his life took a sharp turn toward
salvation. At that point he was drinking, his marriage was
on the rocks, his career was listless. Several accounts have
emerged from those close to Bush about a faith
“intervention” of sorts at the Kennebunkport family
compound that year. Details vary, but here’s the gist of
what I understand took place. George W., drunk at a party,
crudely insulted a friend of his mother’s. George senior and
Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of
something having to be done. George senior, then the vice
president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to
the compound and spent several days with George W. in
probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was
soon born again. He stopped drinking, attended Bible study
and wrestled with issues of fervent faith. 10

It can be argued that this “fervent” faith significantly affected his vision of
the family with which we are here concerned. However, the extent to which
his support of certain conservative Christian issues was focused on
preserving the backing of the conservative Christian that his father had
difficulties maintaining, cannot be underestimated.
64 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
Although Edward Ashbee emphasised that the attitude of President
Bush regarding abortion was ambiguous, and that he chose to defend the
concept of a “right to life” rather than explicitly condemn abortion, the
successes of the pro-life camp under his presidency are undeniable. 11
Ahsbee’s assertion that the phrase “culture of life” was a way to avoid
directly referring to abortion needs to be nuanced, since this phrase was
previously used by Pope John Paul II in explicit reference to abortion. 12
At the discursive level, the position of the president appeared
definitely attune to that of conservative Christians and Catholics. In many
speeches, G.W. Bush claimed that the “right to life” conferred by God and
guaranteed by the Constitution is sacred and is neither the resort of the Courts
nor the government’s. In one of his speeches, he underlined that for him
abortion was akin to terrorism:

Consistent with the core principles about which Thomas

Jefferson wrote, and to which the Founders subscribed, we
should peacefully commit ourselves to seeking a society
that values life - from its very beginnings to its natural end.
Unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected
in law. On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in
this world, and that it does not value life. The terrible
events of that fateful day have given us, as a Nation, a
greater understanding about the value and wonder of life.
Every innocent life taken that day was the most important
person on earth to somebody; and every death extinguished
a world. Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and
tyranny to preserve and protect life. In so doing, we are
standing again for those core principles upon which our
Nation was founded. 13

In this passage George Bush defines terrorism and abortion as both going
against what he calls the “American culture of life.” As such, he sees them as
being “un-American” activities, just as communism was under McCarthy.
Consistent with this argument, during his time in office, the President
delivered speeches, live or recorded, at each of the anti-abortion Marches for
Life that takes place on the Washington Mall each year on the anniversary of
Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion. An
example of Bush’s pro-life stance can be found in his vigorous support of the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which became federal law that same
year. This act allows to sue and condemn a person who “causes the death of,
or bodily injury […] to, a child, who is in utero at the time,” a provision
which legally separates the entity of the unborn child from that of the mother.
By recognising the status of the unborn child, “a member of the species homo
 Claire Greslé-Favier 65
______________________________________________________________
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,” as that of
a full legal person, this law by extension could impose significant restrictions
on abortion, though it is mentioned in the bill that it does not concern
voluntary abortion. By further amendment, this law could lead to the
prohibition of abortion as murder.
Condemning abortion is not only an ethical issue, it is also a means
for conservatives to question the legitimacy of an out-of-wedlock sexuality
that is not concerned with reproduction. The Bush administration answered
this concern in several ways. Among others, it supported the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act (which was eventually defeated), which would
have prevented any adult from helping a minor cross state borders in order to
obtain an abortion in a state where parental notification was not required. 14
The president also strongly encouraged the use of abstinence-only funding to
support “pregnancy resource centers” to which teens and women can turn for
advice in case of an unintended pregnancy. In most cases these are religious
organisations with a strong pro-life agenda. 15 In 2006, a report of the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representative found out
that 87% of the centers it surveyed provided “false and misleading
information about a link between abortion and breast cancer [;…] about the
effect of abortion on future fertility [… and] about the mental health effects
of abortion.” 16 Thus “pregnancy resource centers” attempt to dissuade teens
from seeking an abortion and encourage them to keep their child or put it up
for adoption.
The position of G.W. Bush on contraception also appeared far from
supportive. In addition to promoting abstinence-only programmes and
underlining the failure rates of contraception methods, the Bush
administration restricted the access to contraception for many women. In her
book George W. Bush and the War on Women, Barbara Finlay notes that at
the beginning of his first term in office, G.W. Bush proposed to cut health
insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees. 17 Later in 2001,
the Bush administration refused a request by the state of New York to raise
the income limit for eligibility for contraception coverage for Medicaid
recipients. 18 Finally, the White House press secretary refused several times to
provide any clear answer to the question of Bush’s position on contraception.
In spite of letters from members of Congress, the only answer he provided
was that the president supported “building a culture of life,” 19 an expression
openly associated with Bush’s anti-abortion stance. 20 Ashbee explains that
the argument provided by the administration for this limitation of the
availability of contraceptives is that it is a private matter that should not be
promoted by the government. 21 While many conservative Christians do not
oppose contraception for married couples, the case of emergency
contraception is distinguished, since some see it as a form of abortion.
Contraception is also seen by conservatives as encouraging promiscuity
66 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
among unmarried people. This can account for the opposition of the Bush
administration.
During his presidency, G.W. Bush also defended a traditional
heterosexual vision of marriage, as witnessed by his promotion of the
Marriage Protection Act of 2003, which was defeated in the 108th Congress
and the Marriage Protection Amendment which also did not pass the 109th
Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 already stated that

the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one

man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife. 22

and reasserted the rights of states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages

pronounced in other states.
On February 24, 2004, George Bush endorsed the Marriage
Protection Act of 2003. If it had passed both houses, it would have added to
the provisions of the 1996 Act that “neither the Supreme Court nor any court
created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or
determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title
1 23 ” which defines the meaning of “‘marriage’ and ‘spouse.’” This act would
thus have made same-sex marriage illegal in the USA. Yet, it was very
unlikely that such an act would pass as it undermined the check and balances
of power and can be considered unconstitutional. In an even clearer way the
“Marriage Protection Amendment,” which was also defeated and has not
been reintroduced, would have added to the constitution an article stating that

[m]arriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor
the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require
that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon any union other than the union of a man and a
woman. 24

Even if these acts did not pass, this did not weaken their political impact and
the statement they make that the courts have no right to alter the traditional
definition of marriage.
The Bush administration, like the Heritage Foundation, also
advocated programmes of “Promotion of family formation and healthy
marriage” as part of the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family
Promotion Act of 2003 which it strongly supported. This strengthening of the
traditional family is also at the heart of the administration’s conservative
vision of welfare which, similar to the vision of the Heritage Foundation,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 67
______________________________________________________________
sees moral and religious education, discipline and sexual self-control as the
best remedies to poverty.
The nature of the faith of G.W. Bush and its impact over his policy
decisions still remain unclear. However, there is a high likelihood that his
support of conservative Christian issues was not only a political strategy but
was also motivated by personal ideological views in keeping with his
religious convictions. Through his religious personal narrative and his
speeches and declarations, the president constructed an image that strongly
appealed to conservative Christian audiences who described him as “one of
their own.”

2. Overview of Government Funding of Abstinence Programs

The history of government funding of pro-abstinence programs
started in 1981 with the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which passed
discreetly with the support of conservative Christians. The aim of this act was
to decrease teen pregnancies through the promotion of abstinence. At its
beginning, the budget appropriated under this act was around $11 million in
federal funds, by the year 2000 it had almost doubled.
In 1983, the AFLA programs were the objects of a suit for
unconstitutionality filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The
suit went through various courts, and in 1985 a U.S. district judge found the
AFLA (which was promoting specific religious values and promoting
abstinence as the only choice for teens) unconstitutional, as violating the
separation between church and state clause of the Constitution. In 1988, after
an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision was reversed and sent back
to a lower court.
In 1993 an out-of-court settlement restricted the AFLA by stating
that the sexual education programs it funded must

- Not include religious references.

- Be medically accurate.
- Respect the “principle of self-determination” regarding
contraceptive referral for teenagers.
- Not allow grantees to use church sanctuaries for their
programs or to give presentations in parochial schools
during school hours. 25

Yet, this issue remained very present in the abstinence debate. In August
2005, the federal government decided to suspend the funding to the pro-
abstinence organization the Silver Ring Thing, after the ACLU filed a lawsuit
in May 2005. It accused the organization of “us[ing] abstinence-only-until-
marriage sex education as a means to bring ‘unchurched’ students to Jesus
Christ.” 26
68 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
In 1994, an attempt was made by Congress to impose abstinence-
only-before-marriage 27 education in state schools through an amendment,
proposed by the Republican Representative John Doolittle, to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. However, this amendment was significantly
weakened by four federal statutes that “prohibited the federal government
from prescribing state and local school curriculum standards.” 28
1996 marked a new victory for conservative Christians with the
addition to the Federal Welfare Act of a provision to fund abstinence-only-
until-marriage programs. The provision included eight rules that the states
had to apply to get federal funding. They were also required “to match every
four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars.” 29 The eight rules that
states have to implement in order for their programs to be funded, and
commonly referred to as “A-H”, were that such a program

A – has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social,

psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining
from sexual activity;
B - teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside
marriage as the expected standard for all school-age
children;
C - teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only
certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually
transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D - teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous
relationship in the context of marriage is the expected
standard of sexual activity;
E - teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of
marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and
physical effects;
F - teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to
have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s
parents, and society;
G - teaches young people how to reject sexual advances
and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to
sexual advances, and
H - teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency
before engaging in sexual activity. 30

Starting in fiscal year 1997, funds allocated through the AFLA were also tied
to this eight-point definition and therefore to “a stricter interpretation of what
must be taught.” 31
In late 2000, the federal government created another source of
funding for abstinence-only programs in addition to the AFLA and Title V of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 69
______________________________________________________________
the Social Security Act. Originally designed as the Special Projects of
Regional and National Significance - Community-Based Abstinence
Education (SPRANS-CBAE), this third source of funding enabled the federal
government to directly award grants to national and local pro-abstinence
organizations. At beginning of fiscal year 2005 SPRAN-CBAE, which was
originally administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was placed under the
responsibility of the HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
and started being “referred to simply as Community-Based Abstinence
Education (CBAE).” 32 As underlined by the website www.nonewmoney.org,
created by SIECUS and supported by organizations like Planned Parenthood,
Advocates for Youth, or the YWCA, and which opposes government funding
of abstinence-only programs, ACF is a particularly conservative division of
HHS. Until his resignation in April 2007 - after the shift to a Democratic
majority in Congress - it was headed by Wade Horn, a prominent
conservative and co-creator of the National Fatherhood Institute. This
organization promotes the view that “widespread fatherlessness is the most
socially consequential problem of our time” 33 a claim from which its leaders
derive their opposition to single and homosexual parenthood and their strong
support of marriage and premarital chastity.
While the decision to provide funding for programs was, under Title
V, ultimately the state’s resort. CBAE enabled the government to fund
individual organizations without having to involve the states in its decision.
Like programs funded under Title V, CBAE programs had to respect “A-H.”
In 2006, ACF made these requirements even stricter by detailing and
expanding the eight-point definition. For example, programs were required to
reinforce point B by being consistent with the statements that: “pursuing the
expected standard of abstinence serves to establish an understanding of and
respect for others”; “abstinence reflects qualities of personal integrity and is
honorable.” 34 Likewise point C, D and E had to be reinforced by, among
others, the following or similar statements:

(C) Teaches that contraception may fail to prevent teen

pregnancy and that sexually active teens using
contraception may become pregnant
Does not promote or encourage the use or combining of
any contraceptives in order to make sex “safer.”
(D) Teaches that non-marital sex in teen years may reduce
the probability of a stable, happy marriage as an adult.
Teaches that the lack of commitment associated with non-
marital sex may increase the potential for emotional harm.
70 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
(E) Teaches the potential psychological effects (e.g.,
depression and suicide) associated with adolescent sexual
activity.
Teaches that teen sexual activity is associated with
decreased school completion, decreased educational
attainment, and decreased income potential.
(F) Teaches the importance of marriage to economic well-
being and prosperity and the importance of abstinence in
the teen years to long-term healthy and happy marriages.
Teaches the association between healthy marriage and
adult happiness.
Teaches the relationship of abstinence before marriage and
fidelity in marriage to responsible parenthood. 35

In keeping with the conservative vision of welfare promoted by the Bush

administration and the Heritage Foundation, these statements promoted a
vision of abstinence as morally superior and as the only path to achieve
happiness, a stable marriage, economic prosperity and good parenthood.
Conversely, premarital sexual activity was presented as necessarily
entailing negative emotional and psychological consequences and was related
to low achievements in all areas of life - even though no study backs these
points. 36 In addition, the use of contraceptives as a potential method to
prevent these negative consequences was discouraged. A report by SIECUS
interestingly underlined that

ACF’s contention that “teen sexual abstinence improves

preparation for stable marriage” appears to have come
solely from two papers issued by The Heritage Foundation.
Both papers were co-authored by Heritage’s resident
abstinence-only guru, Robert Rector, also the chief
architect of the expansion of abstinence-only-until-
marriage programs in 1996. Neither of the papers has been
published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals and one,
“Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic Achievement,”
is based simply on an inaccurate analysis of data from the
National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health […]. 37

The potential impact of the Heritage Foundation’s research on government

policy appears here in a particularly problematic light. This report from
SIECUS pointed to further questionable points in these extended
requirements. Their major arguments were that they
 Claire Greslé-Favier 71
______________________________________________________________
- Use scare tactics
- Rely on messages of shame
- Discourage contraceptive use
- Suggest premarital abstinence is a cure-all
- Promote marriage as the only acceptable family structure
- Violates the dignity of LGBTQ young people
- Retraumatizes survivors of sexual abuse, rape, and/or
molestation 38

The last two remarks were based on the promotion by the federal document
of monogamous heterosexual marriage as the only legitimate frame for
sexuality; and on the assertions that “sexual desires are natural and
controllable and […] individuals are capable of making choices to abstain
from sexual activity” and that “personal character and self-discipline [are
important] in deciding to remain sexually abstinent.” 39 Another criticism
raised by SIECUS regarding the CBAE extensions of requirements was that
the definition it provided of abstinence as

voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until

marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital
contact or sexual stimulation between two persons
including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse. 40

was both “unclear and unrealistic for today’s teens” since under this
definition “activities such as holding hands, looking into someone’s eyes, or
kissing - anything that might provoke a physiological response-could be
construed as going against the tenets of premarital abstinence.” 41
SIECUS also pointed out that these new requirements did not
adequately address the need for reliable scientific evaluations of the
programs’ efficiency, a need which in the more than two decades of funding
of abstinence-only programs had never been properly addressed by the
Department of Health and Human Services and raised recurring criticism
from scientists and advocates. The extension of 2006, for example, only
provided for a superficial documentation of

“the number of youth served; the hours of service provided

to each youth; and the number of youth that complete the
program.” While there is some discussion of grantees
having the option to evaluate program participants’
behaviors and attitudes, the ideal outputs are described to
“calculate program efficiency and answer such questions
as, ‘What is the overall cost of providing services per
72 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
program graduate?’ or ‘What is the overall cost per student
per hour of abstinence education?’” 42

The question of the lack of efficiency of abstinence-only programs

in reducing STD, teen pregnancy and abortion rates, as well as of the
scientific reliability of the data released by the government on the issue, are
central to this debate. The inefficiency of abstinence programs in postponing
the initiation of sexual activity was confirmed by a report ordered by
Congress and published in April 2007. The study led by Mathematic Policy
Research, Inc. examined the impact of four federally funded abstinence-only
programs over the course of nine years and concluded that they had no effect
in delaying the initiation of first sexual intercourse. 43 Earlier studies had
underlined that overall, abstinence education had little impact on student’s
sexual behavior. Some results had been noted with younger students who
were not yet sexually experienced, but any intent to remain abstinent
consistently decreased over time. Overall, in most programs the degree of
sexual activity increased with the age of the participants. 44
A review of federal abstinence policies and programs led by several
researchers from institutions like Columbia University, the Indiana School of
Medicine or the American College of Preventive Medicine, also severely
criticized the pro-abstinence policy of the Bush administration and
recommended abandoning abstinence-only “as a basis for health policy and
programs” 45 on the grounds that

policies or programs offering “abstinence only” or

“abstinence until marriage” as a single option for
adolescents are scientifically and ethically flawed.
Although abstinence from vaginal and anal intercourse is
theoretically fully protective against pregnancy and
disease, in actual practice, abstinence-only programs often
fail to prevent these outcomes. Although federal support of
abstinence-only programs has grown rapidly since 1996,
existing evaluations of such programs either do not meet
standards for scientific evaluation or lack evidence in
delaying initiation of sexual intercourse. Although health
care is founded on ethical notions of informed consent and
free choice, federal abstinence-only programs are
inherently coercive, withholding information needed to
make informed choices and promoting questionable and
inaccurate opinions. Federal funding language promotes a
specific moral viewpoint, not a public health approach.
Abstinence-only programs are inconsistent with commonly
accepted notions of human rights. 46
 Claire Greslé-Favier 73
______________________________________________________________
Similarly in 2004 a report prepared for Congressman Henry A.
Waxman, and commonly referred to as the “Waxman report” found that

over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over

two thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false,
misleading, or distorted information about reproductive
health. Specifically, the report finds that

- Abstinence-only curricula contain false information about

the effectiveness of contraceptives. […]
- Abstinence-only curricula contain false information about
the risks of abortion. […]
- Abstinence-only curricula blur religion and science. […]
- Abstinence-only curricula treat stereotypes about girls
and boys as scientific fact.
- Abstinence-only curricula contain scientific errors. 47

That same year, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a study

entitled Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush
Administration’s Misuse of Science, which accused the Bush administration
of “distorting science-based performance measures to test whether
abstinence-only programs were proving effective” and suppressing
“information at odds with its preferred policies.” 48 It also quoted a scientist
formerly occupying a high-ranking position at the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) who explained that “despite the absence of supporting
data, this source and others contend, CDC scientists were regularly reminded
to push the administration’s abstinence-only stance.” 49
In spite of this mass of scientifically grounded objections, funding
for CBAE increased from $20 million for Fiscal Year 2001, to $105 million
for Federal Year 2005 and reached $113 million for Fiscal Year 2007, with
an overall spending of $213.5 million in funding for abstinence-only program
for that year. 50 Another set of recent requirements even extended the target of
abstinence education up to adults aged 29 years old. This decision which
caused a national uproar even from some conservatives 51 was justified by
Wade Horn with the argument that more unmarried women within the 19-29
age range are having children. Therefore, he saw a need to remind abstinence
program providers that their target was not only children and teens but also
adults who needed to hear the message that “it’s better to wait until you’re
married to bear or father children,” and “the only 100% effective way of
getting there is abstinence.” 52 Stephanie Coontz and other commentators
underlined that such strategy stigmatized unmarried people and made little
sense both in practical and social terms since many single-mothers today
deliberately chose to be so and while unmarried may not be raising their
74 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
children without their fathers. 53 The sexist stigmatisation of unmarried
women implied in this requirement was also highly problematic in a
governmental discourse.
AFLA, Title V and CBAE were not the only sources of funding for
abstinence-only education programs for example,

in both Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, Senator Arlen Specter

(R-PA) earmarked over $3 million in federal funding for
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in his home state
of Pennsylvania. Conservative organizations such as the
Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Medical Institute […],
also receive funds specially earmarked by
Congress. Increasingly, abstinence-only-until-marriage
providers are also receiving funds through traditional
HIV/AIDS and STD prevention accounts such as those
administered by HHS and the […] CDC. 54

This approach of the Bush administration to teen pregnancy and STD

prevention was particularly problematic especially given the high rates of
STDs, teen pregnancy and abortion of the US. One of the most recent studies
available so far on the issue and dated from 2001 noted that

Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United

States (22% of women reported having had a child before
age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France
(6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater for
births to younger teenagers. A lower proportion of teenage
pregnancies are resolved through abortion in the United
States than in the other countries; however, because of their
high pregnancy rate, U.S. teenagers have the highest
abortion rate. The age of sexual debut varies little across
countries, yet American teenagers are the most likely to
have multiple partners. 55

The study added that American teenagers also had at that time a higher rate
of STDs than teens from other developed countries.
The unwavering support of the Bush administration for abstinence-
only education appears even more disturbing in light of various studies which
since 2000 showed the overwhelming support for sex-education from parents
of children of middle-school and high-school age. 56 One of the surveys
reported that of the parents polled 90% “believed it was very or somewhat
important that sex education be taught in school” whereas only 70% of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 75
______________________________________________________________
parents disapproved of it, “only 15% wanted an abstinence-only form of sex
education.” 57
Such a lack of public approval and of scientific backing for the
government’s support of abstinence-only education programs hints heavily at
the ideological nature of this issue and consequently of the discourses
surrounding it. It is some of these discourses, under the form of written texts
issued by the government, which will be presented now.
The texts used in this book to represent the position of the Bush
administration, and of previous administrations, on the question of abstinence
education can be divided into four major groups: speeches by G.W. Bush
himself, texts issued on the website of the White House, texts of laws
supported by the Bush administration and previous governments, and internet
resources provided by the government to inform citizens.
George W. Bush was not the first American president to use the
theme of teenage sexuality in his speeches as an important issue. Before him
Bill Clinton, for example, contributed to the construction of teen pregnancy
as a national problem when he claimed in 1997 that there still were “some
pretty big problems in our society” and that none stood “in our way of
achieving our goals for America more than the epidemic of teen
pregnancy.” 58 However, G.W. Bush was the first president to promote
abstinence as the best and unique means to target questions like teen
pregnancy and STDs.
In almost all his speeches mentioning it, President Bush asserted that
“abstinence work[ed] every single time” and was therefore an efficient
solution to the public health and welfare problems constituted by STDs and
teen pregnancies. In spite of this apparent pragmatism, this approach was not
only motivated by public health concerns, but was closely intertwined with a
discourse on public morality. The president proclaimed in his speeches that
promoting abstinence also meant helping “our young children learn to make
right choices in life,” 59 that is, helping them to chose “self-restraint” over
“self-destruction” and thus to “counter the negative influence of the
culture” 60 which sends “wrong messages” to American teenagers. In his
view, it was underestimating teenagers to think that they could not “act
responsibly” 61 and restrain from a premarital sexuality largely legitimated by
“the culture” represented by Hollywood, the media and comprehensive
sexual educators. Like the LaHayes, Meeker or Hagelin, Bush positioned
himself and his values in opposition to a leftist and “amoral” environment.
As he explained in 2002 in a speech delivered in North Carolina:

We ought to try [abstinence]. We ought to work hard; we

ought to shoot for the ideal in society and not get drug
down by the cynics. And so part of making sure that
welfare reauthorization is going to achieve objectives is to
76 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
promote family and to encourage right choices amongst
American youth. 62

The “ideal” to which he alludes here corresponds in his mind to

what he defines as the traditional American values of which the traditional
family unit, as defined by a conservative reading of the Bible, is a key
component.
To preserve these values and this ideal of America, the G.W. Bush
administration had to go further than its predecessors. Even if sexual
abstinence can be seen as a private matter, the president explained that “when
our children face a choice between self-restraint and self-destruction,
government should not be neutral.” 63 Here again, we find the same
oppositions of permissiveness and morality, destruction and restraint, as in
the LaHayes’, Meeker’s and the Heritage Foundation’s discourses. In order
to preserve restraint and morality the government, like ministers and doctors,
had to get involved, even if this meant redefining the boundaries between the
state and the church or between the public and private spheres - even more so
as it was not only the morality of teenagers which was at stake but the ideal
of the nation. The speeches by G.W. Bush oppose abstinence, family and
marriage to a contemporary culture which defines new types of family cells
and questions the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman. For the president, abstinence was not only a matter of public health,
but first and foremost a tool in an ideological campaign to reassert the
conservative vision of the traditional family cell against a postmodern culture
which constantly redefines it.
A conservative vision of welfare consistent with these beliefs was
reasserted in documents issued by the White House like Working Toward
Independence (2002) a text explaining the projects of policies of the Bush
administration regarding welfare. The text summed up the achievements of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 of 1996 and explained “the Bush administration’s detailed plan for [its]
reauthorization” 64 which offered among other things to:

- Maximize Self Sufficiency Through Work

- Promote Child Well-Being and Healthy Marriages
- Encourage Abstinence and Prevent Teen Pregnancy
- Enhance Child Support Enforcement
- Reform Food Stamps to Promote Work 65

Similarly, two of the nineteen chapters of the 2004 Record of Achievement of

the Bush presidency were centered on the themes of child protection, the
strengthening of the family and the promotion of a “culture of life.” 66 The
document listed the “achievements” of the Bush administration regarding
 Claire Greslé-Favier 77
______________________________________________________________
these various issues. Here are some examples of what could be found under
each heading:

Protecting Children:
A new abstinence initiative will double the funding for
abstinence-only education; develop model abstinence-only
education curricula; review all Federal programming for
youth addressing teen pregnancy prevention, family
planning, and STD and HIV/AIDS prevention, to ensure
that the Federal government is sending consistent health
messages to teens; and create a public education campaign
designed to help parents communicate with their children
about the risks associated with early sexual activity. 67

Encouraging Safe and Stable Families:

[…] The President has proposed $240 million per year in
Federal funds over five years to support healthy marriages
through research, demonstration projects and technical
assistance on family formation and healthy marriage
activities. 68

Building a Culture of Life:

[…] President Bush restored the Mexico City Policy, which
states that taxpayer funds should not be provided to
organizations that pay for abortions or advocate or
actively promote abortion, either in the United States or
abroad. 69

Overall, the “achievements” referred to echo the conservative vision of the

family, sexuality and welfare reflected in G.W. Bush’s speeches. The
initiatives concerning children’s protection did not deal with the important
questions of child health care and poverty but mostly with abstinence and the
protection of children from sexual predators. Those concerning the
strengthening of families did not address poverty, health care, parental leave
or adaptable work schedules, but adoption - an alternative to abortion - and
programs to strengthen marriages and to promote “responsible fatherhood.”
Finally, building a “culture of life” was understood as redefining the legal
status of the foetus, limiting access to abortion at home and abroad, and
developing alternatives to abortion like adoption and banning human cloning.
The exceptional nature of the Bush administration’s support for
abstinence education was visible in its choice to devote an entire
governmental website to the promotion of abstinence. Launched in early
78 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
2005 by Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) secretary Mike
Leavitt as

part of a new national public education campaign to

provide parents with the information, tools and skills they
need to help their teens make the healthiest choices. [As
t]here is no substitute for caring parents who are involved
in their children’s lives. 70

The website soon became the object of a controversy. In March 2005, 145
advocacy groups sent a letter to Leavitt “saying that the site provides biased
and inaccurate information to parents and does not emphasize the need for
contraception if a teenager becomes sexually active.” 71
In July of that year, California Representative Henry Waxman,
Democratic author of the “Waxman Report”, which had concluded that many
federally funded abstinence programs were inaccurate and biased, gathered a
panel of medical experts to review the website. The panel concluded that it

contain[ed] inaccurate and misleading information about

condoms, sexual orientation, dangers associated with oral
sex and single-parent households and potentially could lead
to riskier behavior among young people or alienation
among families. 72

Waxman himself questioned the scientific reliability of its creators, arguing

that the website was based more on ideology than on facts. 73 But in spite of
these oppositions it was only slightly altered and was still fully accessible
until the late spring of 2007.
On June 21, 2007, the content and format of the website was
changed. The new version of the website was part of a new public campaign
of the government to encourage parents to talk to their children about
abstinence. 74 4parents.gov still emphasized the negative consequences of
premarital sexuality as well as the failure rates of contraception methods, and
kept promoting adoption over abortion. However its stance on the influence
of religion on teen sexual behavior, among other things, was suppressed and
new version started addressing directly the issue of homosexuality by
encouraging respect, albeit emphasising the “difficulty” that this question
represented. Before this change, most of the content of the website was also
available in print in two booklets downloadable from 4parents.gov: Parents
Speak Up! and Teen Chat. 75 These two texts as well as the site itself in its
older version are extensively used throughout this book as representative of
the position of the Bush administration regarding abstinence. Likewise, legal
texts referred to previously, like the AFLA, Title V of the Welfare Act of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 79
______________________________________________________________
1996, or the extension of the requirements for CBAE funding, are frequently
referred to.
Finally, the Waxman report is also used as a representative summary
of the content of abstinence education programs funded and therefore
supported, then and now, under CBAE. This report, published in 2004, was
commissioned by Waxman in order to evaluate “the content of the most
popular abstinence-only curricula used by grantees of the largest federal
abstinence initiative, SPRANS.” 76 As quoted earlier the investigators found
most of these programs contained “false, misleading, or distorted information
about reproductive health.” 77
Aimed at different audiences and fulfilling different functions, these
various texts, taken together, provide a comprehensive overview of the type
of pro-abstinence discourses produced by the White House during the G.W.
Bush’s presidency and of what the Bush administration comprised under the
definition of abstinence.
This chapter has shown that contemporary abstinence advocacy,
while being inscribed in a long tradition, also differs from it to a significant
extent in its unique association of a relatively marginal but politically
powerful religious community and a president who displayed an exceptional
level of commitment to this issue. However, despite the clear ideological and
discursive similarities between the conservative Christian community and the
Bush administration, it is important to keep in mind that abstinence
proponents do not constitute a homogenous group but stand on an ideological
continuum which goes from the more “marginal” to the more “mainstream”
type of abstinence advocacy. As will be shown in the next chapters, while
they reached a high level of congruity in the past decade, these various pro-
abstinence discourses do not necessarily emphasize the various issues
connected to abstinence to the same degree and do not always seek to reach
the same goals through their promotion of premarital chastity.

Notes
1
A Cooperman, ‘Bush Leaves Specifics of His Faith to Speculation,’ The
WashingtonPost.com, 16 September, 2004, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24634-2004Sep15.html>
2
Cooperman, 2004; D Aikman, A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of
George W. Bush, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2004; S Mansfield, The Faith
Of George W. Bush, Charisma House, New York, 2004.
3
Professor of English Burton Hatlen explains that for Lewis: “anyone who
calls him/herself a Christian must accept: the essential goodness of the world
created by God, the Fall of human beings from an original state of perfection
as a result of their willful disobedience of God’s command, Christ as the true
80 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

and only Son of God, the redemption of humans from their state of sin
through Christ’s death on the cross, hell as the destiny of all unbelievers,
eternal life in heaven as the reward of all who accept Christ as their Savior,”
B Hatlen, ‘Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Challenge to the Fantasies of
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, with an Epilogue on Pullman’s Neo-
Romantic Reading of Paradise Lost,’ in M Lenz and C Scott (eds), His Dark
Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy, Wayne
State University Press, Detroit, 2005, p.80.
4
Hatlen, op. cit., p.80.
5
See Ashbee, op. cit.
6
Cooperman, op. cit.; Aikman, op. cit.; Mansfield, op. cit..
7
Finlay, op. cit., p.80.
8
J Wallis, ‘Dangerous Religion,’ Sojourners Magazine, September-October
2003, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&ar
ticle=030910>
9
R Suskind, ‘Without a Doubt,’ The New York Times, October 17, 2004,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665
600en=890a96189e162076ei=5090>
10
ibid.
11
Ashbee, op. cit., pp. 193-225.
12
John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 25 March 1995, viewed on 26 May
2007,<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/document
s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html>
13
G W Bush, ‘National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002: A Proclamation
by the President of the United States of America,’ 18 January 2002a, viewed
on 17 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020118-10.html>
14
A more detailed catalogue of the steps taken by G.W. Bush to “promote a
culture of life” can be found in the fifteenth chapter of: White House,
President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of Achievement, August
2004, viewed on 24 March 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/Achievement.pdf>.
15
H A Waxman (prepared for), False and Misleading Information Provided
by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers, July 2006, viewed 26
May 2007, <http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060717101140-
30092.pdf>
16
ibid., p.I.
17
Finlay, op. cit., p.76.
18
ibid., p.76.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 81
______________________________________________________________

19
White House, ‘Press Briefing by Scott McClellan,’ 26 May 2005, viewed
on 25 March 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526-1.html>
20
Finlay, op. cit., pp.76-78.
21
Ashbee, op. cit., p.114.
22
Defence of Marriage Act of 1996, H.R. 3396, Public Law 104-199, 104th
Congress.
23
This refers to the amendment of Chapter 1 of title 1, of the United States
Code with the section 7 of Public Law 104-199 of 1996 entitled: “Definition
of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse.’”
24
Marriage Protection Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced
2005, 109th Congress.
25
M Howell, ‘The Future of Sexuality Education: Science or Politics?’
Transitions, March 2001, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/transitions/transitions
1203.pdf>
26
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)), ‘ACLU Applauds Federal
Government’s Decision to Suspend Public Funding of Religion by
Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program,’ 22 August 2005,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://64.106.165.214/news/08.22.05%20SilverRing.pdf>
27
“Abstinence-only” programs teach abstinence as the only safe protection
against STDs and pregnancy and do not give any information about other
forms of contraception and protection.
28
SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, ‘Toward a Sexually Healthy America:
Roadblocks Imposed by the Federal Government’s Abstinence-Only-Until-
Marriage Education Program,’ 2001, viewed on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/abstinenceonly.pdf>, p.6.
29
Howell, op. cit., p.1.
30
Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, P.L. 104-193. These
requirements can also be referred to as part of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 or PRWORA, SEC. 101,
depending on the context and time frame in which they are referred to.
31
Nonewmoney.org, ‘A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Funding,’ 2006a, viewed on 22 March 2007,
<http://www.nonewmoney.org/history.html>
32
ibid.
33
National Fatherhood Initiative, ‘NFI History,’ 2007, viewed on March 22
2007, <https://www.fatherhood.org/history.asp>
34
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.7.
82 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

35
ibid., pp.7-11.
36
See Santelli et al., op. cit., p.74.
37
SIECUS, ‘Special Report: It Gets Worse: A Revamped Federal
Abstinence-Only Program Goes Extreme,’ 2006b, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.siecus.org/policy/SpecialReports/Revamped_Abstinence-
Only_Goes_Extreme.pdf>
38
ibid.
39
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.12.
40
ibid., p.5.
41
SIECUS, 2006b.
42
ibid.
43
Mathematica, 2007.
44
Nonewmoney.org, ‘Harmful Consequences,’ 2006b, 23 March 2007,
<http://www.nonewmoney.org/harmful.html>
45
Santelli et al., op. cit., p.79.
46
ibid., p.79.
47
H A Waxman (prepared for), The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-
Only Education Programs, December 2004, viewed on 22 May 2007, <
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf>, p.I-II.
48
Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An
Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science, March 2004,
viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/RSI_final_fullr
eport_1.pdf>, p.11.
49
ibid., p.12.
50
Nonewmoney.org, ‘A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Funding: Spending for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs (1982-
2008),’ 2007, viewed 21 June 2007,
<http://nomoremoney.org/historyChart.html>
51
S Coontz, ‘No Sex for You,’ 6 November 2006, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/06/no_sex_for_you.php>
52
S Jayson, ‘Abstinence Message Goes Beyond Teens,’ USAtoday.com,
31 October 2006, 23 March 2007, <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/
2006-10-30- abstinence-message_x.htm>
53
Coontz, op. cit.
54
Nonewmoney.org, op.cit.
55
J E Darroch, Jacqueline E., S Singh and J J Frost, ‘Differences in Teenage
Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed Countries: The Roles of Sexual
Activity and Contraceptive Use,’ Family Planning Perspectives,
November/December 2001, 33 (6): pp.244-281, p.244.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 83
______________________________________________________________

56
Nonewmoney.org, ‘On Our Side: Public Support for Comprehensive
Sexuality Education,’ 2006c, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.nonewmoney.org/public.html>
57
Dailard, op. cit.
58
W J Clinton, ‘Radio Address of the President to the Nation,’ St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands, 4 January 1997, quoted in T C West, ‘The Policing of Black
Women’s Sexual Reproduction’ in K M Sands (ed), God Forbid: Religion
and Sex in American Public Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New
York, 2000, p.138.
59
G W Bush, ‘National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002: A Proclamation
by the President of the United States of America,’ 18 January 2002d, viewed
on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020118-10.html>
60
G W Bush, ‘State of the Union Address,’ 20 January 2004, viewed on 18
June 2007,<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-
7.html>
61
G W Bush, ‘President Announces Welfare Reform Agenda,’ 26 February
2002b, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020226-11.html>
62
G W Bush, ‘President Discusses Welfare Reform and Job Training,’ 27
February 2002c, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020227-5.html>
63
Bush, 2002b.
64
White House, Working Toward Independence, 2002, viewed on 16
February 2009, < http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-reform-
announcement-book.pdf>, p.1.
65
White House, 2002, Table of Contents.
66
White House, President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of
Achievement, August 2004, viewed on 24 March 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/Achievement.pdf>
67
ibid., p.36, emphasis in the original.
68
ibid., p.37, emphasis in the original.
69
ibid., p.38, emphasis in the original.
70
www. 4parents.gov
71
Kaisernetwork.org, ‘Nearly 150 Advocacy Groups Send Letter to HHS
Secretary Criticizing Government Sex Ed Web Site as Biased, Inaccurate,’
April 1, 2005a, viewed on 11 May 2007,
<http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=29069
>
84 “Governmental” Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

72
Kaisernetwork.org, ‘HHS Abstinence Web Site for Parents of Teens
Contains Inaccurate, Misleading Information, Review Says,’ July 14, 2005b,
viewed on 11 May 2007,
<http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=31365
>
73
ibid.
74
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, ‘HHS Unveils “Parents Speak Up” National
Campaign PSA Campaign, New Web Site Help Parents Talk to Kids About
Waiting to Have Sex,’ 21 June 2007, viewed on 2 July 2007,
<http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2007/parents_speak_up.htm>
75
The content of 4parents.gov was renewed in late spring 2007 and these
booklets can now be downloaded in an updated version slightly different
from the one used here.
76
Waxman, op. cit., p.i.
77
ibid., p.i.
 Chapter 6
Abstinence and Creationism
Abstinence may at first appear as just one out of many issues that
constitute the conservative Christian agenda. A closer look, however, shows
that it is at the heart of many other conservative Christian discourses and that
it is part of a complex ideological framework whose various segments
mutually reinforce each other.
The next six chapters seek to explain how a seemingly single, rather
obscure issue was in the past decade at the center of American conservative
Christian ideology and politics. It will prove a surprising cohesion and
systematicity of conservative thinking and show how various issues and
conservative Christian narratives are linked through the demand for sexual
abstinence before marriage.
To begin with, the presence of the creationist narrative in pro-
abstinence discourses will be analysed as well as the interaction between this
narrative and the one of abstinence. I then move on to explore how pro-
abstinence discourses and the polarised vision of sexual morality they
provide enable conservative Christians to actualize their experience of
sexuality through a clear set of reassuring guidelines.
In Chapters 7 and 9 I investigate how pro-abstinence discourses
strengthen the conservative Christian narrative of the “superiority” of the
traditional patriarchal family cell, as well as their defense of the right of
parents to control every areas of their children’s life.
Finally, Chapters 10 and 11 look in detail at the promotion by pro-
abstinence discourses of a vision of welfare and poverty based on the cultural
narrative of success, as well as at the instrumental role of abstinence
programmes in promoting this vision. It also underlines how pro-abstinence
discourses through their focus on children’s sexual innocence contribute to
maintain the impression that conservative Christians are in the middle of a
“culture war.”
Though both topics are high on the conservative Christian agenda,
the link between abstinence and creationism is not necessarily an obvious
one. Yet it is clearly made by both the LaHayes and Rebecca Hagelin, who
explain to their readers that teaching creationism is crucial to achieving the
goal of “raising virtuous children.” 1
Starting with the Scopes trial in 1925, the visibility of creationism as
one of the key narratives of American fundamentalist Christianity remained
high throughout the century even after a drop before its revival in the 1960s.
It even regained momentum after the arrival of the Bush administration to
power with the support of the president for the teaching of both evolution and
creationism 2 and particularly in 2005 with the controversy over the concept
of “intelligent design” (ID). 3 As for abstinence, it has been the object of
86 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
growing media attention at home and abroad in the past decades, particularly
in view of the important support it received from the two G. W. Bush
administrations.
It is interesting that these two issues which are at the core of the
media and self-image of conservative Christians are brought together by both
the LaHayes and Hagelin. The quotes in which they do so look very similar.
The first one, by the LaHayes, is taken from the second chapter of their book
entitled “How To Raise Virtuous Children,” which formulates various pieces
of advice and principles for parents to follow in the education of their
offspring. This advice ranges from loving children to teaching them “early
about sex,” from sending them to Christian schools to teaching them moral
values and from keeping them active in the church to not making them delay
marriage for too long. The quote by Hagelin comes from an article with a
similar intent, entitled “The Culture War: A Five-Point Plan for Parents.”
These five points are: “envision the type of adult you want your child to
become”; “commit to the daily battle” against contemporary culture; “teach
your child that he has intrinsic value in God’s eyes”; “improve your family
life”; and “take a hands-on approach with your child’s education.” 4
Both quotes revolve around the same idea, the link between the
belief in creationism and children’s “self acceptance.” For the LaHayes, self
acceptance

is a problem for children because public educators reject or

omit all references to God and teach children they are
biological accidents - the result of ‘random chance as
products of evolution.’ We know better. Our children are
creatures of God! They need to know that. Talk about
improving self-image! Children who know they are
creatures of God have much less trouble understanding
‘Who am I?’ or ‘Where do I come from?’ than those
children who mistakenly think they evolved. 5

Hagelin explains that

The greatest gift we can give our children is to let them

know that there is a God who loves them and knows them
by name. We must teach our sons and daughters that the
God of the Universe is intensely interested and familiar
with every aspect of their lives and wants what is best for
them. Today’s culture teaches even the young child that he
is here by accident, and that he is just another creature on a
big, impersonal planet, no different from any other animal.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 87
______________________________________________________________
It’s no wonder that kids today are experiencing depression
and loneliness in record numbers. 6

For both Hagelin and the LaHayes, teaching children through evolution that
they are “biological accidents - the result of ‘random chance as products of
evolution’”, “just another creature on a big, impersonal planet, no different
from any other animal”, leads to poor self-acceptance. On the other hand,
they argue that creationism provides children with a sense that they are
“creatures” of a God “who loves them and knows them by name” and “is
intensely interested and familiar with every aspect of their lives and wants
what is best for them”, which provides them with a strong sense of self-
confidence and worth. Both reinforce their point by blaming the “record
numbers” of teenagers who “today are experiencing depression and
loneliness” due to problems of “self-acceptance” on the teaching of
evolution.
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 7 one of the foremost US
creationist organisations, holds similar views as the LaHayes and Hagelin.
The ICR was created (with the help of Tim LaHaye) in 1970, by H. M.
Morris who is often credited for the renewal of the creationist movement in
the 1960s. The ICR defines Darwinism as a “pessimistic, antitheistic, and
nihilistic” 8 theory which sees the human mind as nothing more than - and
here they quote the science columnist C. Raymo - “a computer made of
meat.” 9 For them such a pessimistic vision of humanity is not what children
should be taught. 10
The ICR, and creationists in general, identify two major negative
consequences of Darwinism. First, it questions the inerrancy of the Bible by
invalidating the story of the Creation told by Genesis. In their view, this
amounts to robbing the Gospel of its foundation, since to question one
passage of the Bible is to question and invalidate the whole of the Christian
faith.
Second, Darwinism, by putting animals and humans at the same
level, denies man a “special superior status” in the Creation and thus refutes
the existence of man’s immortal soul. In his book L’Amérique entre la Bible
et Darwin (America Between the Bible and Darwin) French philosopher D.
Lecourt explains that for creationists that if the soul of man is not immortal, it
is not submitted to the Last Judgment and consequently Christian morality
collapses, since the absence of judgment makes the need for morality void. 11
As a matter of fact for the ICR, the sheer immorality implied by the
“atheistic” evolutionist stance witnesses to the fact that this theory is “Satan’s
lie, 12 ” “the anti-Gospel of anti-Christ.” 13 Lecourt underlines that for
creationists, evolutionism is a trick devised by Satan to draw humans towards
immediate physical pleasures and away from God. For, they argue, if we are
88 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
just animals and there is no God and no Last Judgment, what is the point of
being moral and resisting physical temptations? 14 In Tim LaHaye’s words,

[t]he doctrine of evolution has led naturally to the

destruction of the moral foundation upon which this
country was built. If you believe that man is an animal, you
will expect him to live like one. Consequently, almost
every law required to maintain a Bible-based, morally sane
society - such as those involving marriage and divorce or
sexual matters such as pornography and homosexuality -
has been struck down so that man may follow his animal
instincts and appetites. 15

To raise “moral” children it is therefore indispensable to educate them in the

belief of the Genesis’ story of creation.
Likewise, in their advocacy of abstinence, the LaHayes explain that
if children need to know that they are “children of God and coheirs with
Jesus Christ - John 1:12; Romans 8:17” 16 before anything else, they also
need to be told that they are their parents’ children. Drawing a parallel with
their argument on creationism, they explain that “it is reassuring to children
to know they were wanted by their parents and are loved by them.” 17 In their
view, children should know that they are neither random “biological
accidents” nor the outcome of the random sexual encounter of their parents.
On the contrary, they need to understand that they are the fruit of a loving
relationship sanctified by marriage. Following this idea, out-of-wedlock birth
can be assimilated with the theory of evolution, as according to this logic
children who have no “proof” of the love of their unmarried parents, might be
exposed to problems of self-acceptance and see themselves as an “accident,”
a “mistake.” To understand fully the weight of this argument it is
indispensable to keep in mind that for abstinence proponents, as a famous
advocacy group put it, “True Love Waits”, and that individuals who cannot
wait until marriage to have sex do not genuinely love each other.
In their advocacy of abstinence, the LaHayes also use creationism to
reassert the fact that Christians are “children of God” and that according to St
Paul “their body is not their own but is ‘the temple of God’ and should be
kept holy.” 18 For the LaHayes, when a child “received” Christ (usually
through baptism or a born-again experience) he/she becomes the “temple of
God.” This means that God has “a wonderful plan” for the life of this child
and this plan is “his road to true happiness.” 19 But it can only be fulfilled
through “sexual purity or virtue.” For as St Paul writes,

[t]he body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the
Lord… Do you not know that your bodies are members of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 89
______________________________________________________________
Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and
unite them with a prostitute [immoral person]? Never! Do
you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is
one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become
one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one
with him in spirit - 1 Corinthians 6:13b 15-17. 20

It is interesting to note here how the LaHayes cautiously add the commentary
that a prostitute stands for “immoral persons” in general, therefore preventing
their readers from a literal, uninterpreted reading of the passage. They also
warn their readers that “nothing circumvents the ‘perfect will of God’ for a
person’s life like the sexual sins of fornication and adultery.” 21 For the
LaHayes, “fornication” includes premarital sex: “young people need to
realize that premarital sex is not some harmless activity like baseball or
tennis. The Bible calls it ‘fornication.’” 22
But children are not only part of God’s body, they are also part of
the body of their earthly family, to which they are accountable. Thus, the
LaHayes argue that when a child behaves in a promiscuous way s/he not only
defiles “Christ’s body” or “God’s temple,” but is also “a reproach to the
whole family.” 23 Through this discursive link between creationism and
abstinence, the analogy between God and the family of Christians on the one
hand and parents and earthly family on the other is reinforced, as is the
authority of both over the child. As will be analysed in greater detail further
on, abstinence discourses are heavily involved in this discursive project of
reinforcement of parental and religious authority.
The LaHayes and Hagelin also draw a parallel between creationism
and abstinence by their reference to children’s lack of “self-acceptance,”
“depression and loneliness.” Along with the theory of evolution and out-of-
wedlock births, they see premarital sex as both being a potential cause and
consequence of such negative states of mind. In Meg Meeker’s words:

Studies find that kids who are depressed gravitate towards

sex, since sex acts as a drug, numbing a hurt, filling a void,
keeping their minds altered, if only for a moment. But
sexual activity also leads to depression. 24

The parallel made here by Meeker between premarital sex and drug use is a
common rhetorical device in pro-abstinence discourses. It reflects the
commonly held view that the use of addictive substances, like alcohol and
drugs, can occasion a lack of control and a suspension of inhibitions, which
may lead to sexual activity. It also emphasises the vision of teenage sexual
activity as another “risk behavior” threatening youth’s physical and mental
health on the same negative level as drug or alcohol abuse.
90 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
This position is further reinforced by Elayne Bennett’s foreword to
Meeker’s first book, where she states that,

[m]any adolescents do not hold themselves in high regard,

and the absence of self-worth can be a serious handicap,
which makes them more vulnerable to negative peer
pressure, early sexual activity, drug and alcohol abuse, and
violent and aggressive behavior. 25

Here again the causal link between lack of “self-worth” and premarital sex is
drawn, a lack of self-worth caused, for the LaHayes, by a lack of parental
love. 26 But another link that the attentive reader will most likely not fail to
make is that those children, who so much lack self-worth that they look for it
in sex, were probably not taught creationism but evolution. Following the
creationist argument, children who believe that they were created by a loving
God who has “a wonderful plan” for them would not need to find reassurance
in sex. On the contrary, children who think that they are just animals, the
random result of natural coincidences, develop a low level of self-confidence
and do not acquire the moral values necessary to behave differently from
animals and practice sexual abstinence. This is the view held by John Morris,
who asks if “teaching more evolution” is the solution or the cause of the
“malfunctions” of US public schools.

Decades of teaching students that they evolved from animal

ancestry by purely random processes like mutation and
natural selection, that there is no Creator to whom they are
responsible, that there are no absolutes in morality, has
brought us to this point. Can evolutionists legitimately
blame the situation in today’s schools, whose students
murder classmates and teachers with no remorse, where
premarital sex and sexually transmitted diseases are
common, where suicidal thoughts plague many, on lack of
better evolution teaching? 27

Following Morris, the LaHayes and Hagelin, creationism, by boosting self-

confidence and morals, helps prevent premarital sex and is consequently
reasserted as being an indispensable tool in children’s education. Conversely,
abstinence defined as the appropriate attitude towards one’s own body and
therefore Christ’s, reasserts the creationist idea that humans are children of
God. Both creationist and pro-abstinence discourses thus confirm each other
in a circular pattern.
This pattern of confirmation does not stop there, as abstinence is
related to creationism through yet another argument. As hinted at by Hagelin
 Claire Greslé-Favier 91
______________________________________________________________
and confirmed by the ICR, creationism reinforces the notion of the adamant
difference between human and animal nature. If humans are children of God
conceived in his likeness, they are of a divine nature, not “just another
creature on a big, impersonal planet, no different from any other animal.” 28
On the contrary, creationism views Darwinism as a theory stating that
humans are “descended from the ape” and therefore do not owe their
superiority to an essential difference in nature with other animals but to
natural coincidences. As stated earlier, if humans believe that they are just
animals and consequently do not believe in God, their sense of morality
collapses and they will succumb to earthly temptations particularly to sexual
immorality. Additionally, the heavily sexually connoted image of the ape,
which is strongly connected to the popular vision of Darwinism, reinforces
the link between animality and sexuality.
The notion that sex undermines the difference between humans and
animals is central to a tradition which claims “that human development
occurs through a shift away from the animal bodily calls of physicality to the
higher planes of reason and the mind.” 29 An example of this can be found in
the early American fear of miscegenation, which lasted well into the
twentieth century. The idea that a white “civilized” man or woman could
have sex with an “uncivilized” black slave or Native American, who were
considered closer to animals than to humans, was threatening for colonial and
19th-century religious authorities. Indeed, at that time and until the beginning
of the 20th century, blacks were seen as standing at the bottom of the scale of
“races” only followed by the orangutan. Given their different sexual and
social practices, among them polygamy, blacks and Native Americans were
considered much more sexually oriented than whites who, by regulating their
sexuality through monogamous marriage, could control their sexual urges
which bore witness to their more divine nature. As mentioned in Chapter 1,
similar arguments were also used later in American history to differentiate
between “civilised” Anglo-Saxons and “uncivilised immigrants.” 30 However,
not all forms of sex were considered degrading, marriage was considered by
Puritans as “an expression of love and fellowship” 31 only “fornication” or
illicit sex was seen as “unclean” and “disorderly” and as pulling them away
from God and spirituality.
This last idea is also defended by the LaHayes, who claim that
“premarital sex destroys our children’s spiritual life” 32 through the guilt they
feel after disobeying God. The LaHayes also confirm the idea that
extramarital sexuality is of an “animal” nature by stating that a boy who says
he cannot wait until marriage to have sex is not in love but “in heat.” 33 By
controlling their sexuality through abstinence before marriage, Christians
reassert their divine status and deny their animality, which is also the purpose
of creationism.
92 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
Another additional common feature of pro-abstinence and creationist
writings is their similar wish to counteract the decline of “traditional
American values” through a pro-family agenda. For the Heritage Foundation,
as well as for the G.W. Bush administration while it was in office, abstinence
is part of a larger plan to reassert the traditional family. In Heritage’s view
“the basic unit of society is the family and the cornerstone of the family is
marriage”; “as an institution, marriage is the foundation of a harmonious and
enriching family life and the basic building block of our society.” 34 This
position is similar to the one promoted in the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which stated that “marriage is
the foundation of a successful society [and] an essential institution of a
successful society which promotes the interests of children.” The G.W.
administration, like the Heritage Foundaation, considered that teenage
sexuality endangers marriage for two reasons. First, because it reduces the
need for this institution by refusing to see it as the only frame for sexual
activity; second, because it increases the likelihood of having different sexual
partners throughout one’s life. By its refusal of the model of traditional
lifelong monogamous marriage as the only legitimate frame of sexual
activity, teenage sexuality also opens the way to non-traditional sexualities
(extramarital sex, homosexuality) and non-traditional family cells (single-
parent families, gay families).
On the contrary, abstinence-only programmes support the traditional
family by teaching that:

- Abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage [is] the

expected standard for all school age children.
- A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context
of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual
activity. 35

Moreover, as explained in Chapter 4 and developed further on, the Heritage

Foundation promotes the idea that abstinence “reduce[s] risk behaviors and
instill[s] moral character.” 36 Thus, it constitutes a crucial tool in the fight
against what it defines as “behavioral poverty,” and for the reassertion of
“traditional American moral values” that Heritage, along with most
conservative Christians, sees as “declining.”
The idea of the “decline” of America and its “traditional values” is
also at the heart of Morris’ creationist discourse. Grounding his argument in
his literal reading of the Bible, Morris argues that, eventually, all nations will
be evaluated by God along five criteria and then “He” will part the “good”
ones from the others. Those five criteria are “righteousness”; the extent to
which those nations see God through the “evidences” he left in his Creation
which amounts to their belief in creationism; whether these nations are
 Claire Greslé-Favier 93
______________________________________________________________
friends with Israel, God’s chosen nation; the extent of their missionary work;
and finally how they respect the biblical injunction to

“[b]e fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and

subdue it and have dominion . . . over the earth” - Genesis
1:26. This mandate implies a large population and every
honorable occupation - science, commerce, education, etc.
This “dominion mandate” amounts in effect to a
magnificent divinely-commissioned stewardship for man
over God’s great creation - to understand its processes and
develop its resources to the glory of God and the good of
men. 37

Following these five criteria, Morris continues by asking if the United States
will be among the “chosen” nations.

What about our own nation? We have been the best friends
of Israel and have also contributed more than most other
nations to the dominion mandate. Our nation was founded
in large measure to serve the Lord, and has sent out the
largest number of missionaries in modern times. In the past,
at least, our moral standards were relatively high. 38

Using the recurring complaint of conservative discourses that moral

standards were higher in the past, a past identified as antedating “recent
decades,” Morris suggests that the main failing of the United States
concerning God’s requirements is on the “moral” level. This is reinforced by
the idea that the “recent decades” to which he is referring have been marked
by the sexual revolution and the women’s liberation movement. Though he
adds in the next paragraph that “our positions relative to all five of the criteria
have badly declined”, 39 he still puts the emphasis on the “moral” one, in most
of his articles and in the remedies he offers against this decline.
As a solution to this crisis, and also to insure that the United States
will be among the “chosen,” he offers “true Biblical revival.” 40 That is, a
revival which must be based on creationism. As explained further above, for
ICR analysts the Christian faith has been corrupted by evolution, as even part
of the church adheres to it. But evolution is not only the cause of the collapse
of morality. Using the contentious link between Darwinism and eugenics,
they also add that with its defense of the notion of the “survival of the fittest”
the theory of evolution is at the root of “racism, imperialism, and economic
exploitation” 41 - and this in spite of the fact that conservative Christians have
rarely convincingly opposed any of these.
94 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
Emphasising that calling for changes in law will not solve “moral
problems” like abortion, homosexuality or suicide, ICR analyst Kenneth Ham
concludes that

[o]nly this realization - that all of Biblical doctrine has its

foundation in the book of beginnings, the book of Genesis -
will enable Christians to come back to the fulfillment of
God’s ultimate plan and purpose for mankind. The church
will then return to the understanding of its moral values and
responsibilities - that marriage means one man for one
woman for life, that homosexual behavior is an
abomination to the Lord, that the family is the first and
most fundamental of all human institutions as well as the
backbone of society, and that the immorality that is
pervading the world today is causing a schism between
God and man which can be healed only by a return to
God’s Word, beginning with the book of Genesis and
continuing through the belief in the “one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus” - I Timothy 2:5. 42

Here again, the emphasis is put on sexual morality and the “collapse” of the
“traditional family” as the core of the necessary Biblical Revival. In this
quote, Ham raises the exact same concerns raised by pro-abstinence
discourses: the challenge to the traditional family cell. Similar to the
LaHayes’ discourse, which explains that abstinence or “sexual purity and
virtue” are the only way to fulfil God’s “wonderful plan,” 43 for Ham
fulfilling “God’s ultimate plan” 44 means going back to a traditional vision of
lifelong monogamous and heterosexual marriage.
To fulfil this plan, abstinence and creationism both work at the same
level: education. The strategies used to promote creationism and abstinence
are similar and are very much representative of the grassroots activism
developed by conservative Christians. Advocacy groups for both causes
advise their followers to act on the level of school boards by running for
membership and lobbying for the censorship of explicit books, of sexual
education programmes, or for the inclusion of creationist materials in biology
courses. The ICR provides clear guidelines to its members. They first suggest
that creationists should get information on which authorities in their state are
responsible for decisions regarding school curriculum. Then, they should try
to obtain permission to speak at the next board of education meeting.

Finally, creationists should petition the state (or district)

board of education to pass a resolution to teach both the
scientific evidence for creation and the scientific evidence
 Claire Greslé-Favier 95
______________________________________________________________
for evolution, in any course dealing with origins. And
creationists should request the state (or district) textbook
commission to select only texts presenting both scientific
creationism and evolution, or else to require supplements
presenting scientific creationism to be attached to the inside
back cover of texts presenting only evolution. 45

The type of strategy offered by abstinence proponents is similar. They

usually target either sexually “explicit” books in literature programmes, sex-
education programmes and pedagogical tools. With these types of clear
guidelines any convinced creationist, or abstinence proponent, can easily get
involved in promoting his cause in his school district.
This method has been particularly efficient in the past thirty years;
as in most cases proponents of comprehensive sex-ed and of evolution are
much less organised and less systematically involved in school-boards. This
type of local activity is in fact the major focus of Pat Robertson’s Christian
Coalition, one of the foremost conservative Christian organizations. Linda
Kintz explains that

[t]he Christian Coalition conducts School Board Training

Seminars around the country, and in conjunction with those
seminars publishes a sophisticated leadership manual that
consists of the following sections: “Dealing with Teacher’s
Unions,” “Education Reform and School Choice,” […]
“Winning as a Religious Conservative,” “Developing Your
Campaign Plan and Message.” Also available for purchase
and use in one’s church group are a set of videotapes
entitled Targeting Voters and Building Coalitions, Building
an Effective Grassroots Organization, Developing Your
Campaign Plan and Message, […] 46

Rebecca Hagelin, among others, is featured on one of these Christian

Coalition tapes. It is this type of activism which regularly brings cases to
federal courts where, for example, the creationist curriculum imposed by a
local school-board is challenged by proponents of evolution.
Another type of activism is used at the national level by prominent
think-tanks and organisations. However, so far, this strategy has been much
more efficient for abstinence than for creationist education, which has been
repeatedly declared unconstitutional by the courts. On the contrary, since the
Reagan administration, abstinence has enjoyed an increased support from
Republican Congresses and administrations which was translated in increased
federal funding for abstinence-only programmes.
96 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
Creationism and abstinence proponents also put forward similar
arguments to defend their position. Both argue that parents, not the federal
state, have the right to decide what their children are being taught; and that
sex education and evolution, by going against their religious and moral
beliefs discriminates against them. This logic is well illustrated by the
following quote from the ICR which argues that

[t]he First Amendment of the Constitution protects free

exercise of an individual’s religion from government
abridgment. […] Abridgment of this constitutional right to
religious freedom occurs when a governmental program
puts a burden on religious exercise and when no
compelling reason justifies that burden. […] Classroom
instruction that presents only evolution without an
alternative theory puts a burden on religious freedom.
Teaching only one theory of the origin of life and man
indoctrinates creationist students in that evolutionary
theory, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public schools
cannot undermine religious beliefs. 47

Abstinence proponents follow a similar line when they consider that

sex-education in public schools draws their children to immoral behaviors
and go against the moral and religious values of their families. The LaHayes
even claim that in some cases school administrators and teachers force
children to take sex education. 48 This assertion is questionable for, as W.S.
Pillow underlined, “unlike many components of sex education courses,
abstinence-only programmes require no notification to parents or permission
from parents for their children to participate.” 49 And yet in many cases the
movies and pictures which abstinence-only programmes present of STD
symptoms, for example, can be considered as “shocking” as images displayed
in sexual education classes.
The idea that creationist and pro-abstinence parents and their
children are being discriminated against, though questionable, carries a
strong potential for mobilisation. This is well illustrated by Hagelin, who
lyrically encourages her fellow conservatives to “commit to the daily battle”
to defend their children against a “killer culture” which threatens Christian
standards of morality, decency and faith. 50
Reversing the terms of discourses is a crucial tool in conservative
Christian strategy. In the same manner as they present themselves as pro-life
or pro-family, instead of as anti-abortion or anti-gay, to give a more positive
and inclusive connotation to their movement, they reverse the arguments of
their opponents who consider them as discriminating against gays and
women to put themselves in the position of the discriminated-against
 Claire Greslé-Favier 97
______________________________________________________________
minority. Though conservative Christians often claim to be part of a “moral
majority,” the way they construct themselves as a persecuted minority whose
values and beliefs are threatened by a “perverted” culture has been powerful
and instrumental in their appeal. Thus, they draw a parallel between the
persecuted Pilgrim Fathers who escaped England to redeem the Protestant
faith, and themselves as a “righteous” persecuted minority which tries to save
this Puritan heritage and preserve “traditional American values” through the
promotion of creationism and abstinence.
Another interesting aspect of the conservative Christians’ activism at
the public school level is the fact that they loudly encourage parents to
withdraw their children from public schools to put them in private schools or
homeschool them. Consistent with their conservative advocacy of minimal
state intervention, they argue that the state has no right to impose a certain
type of education on children but that this choice belongs first and foremost
to parents. Consequently, the Heritage Foundation, for example, advocates
school vouchers to enable poorer parents to send their children to private
schools if they want to. But if conservative Christians do not put their
children in public schools, why then lobby for the inclusion of abstinence and
creationism in those schools’ programmes? Undoubtedly, one could argue
that homeschooling and private schools are not necessarily a viable option for
all parents and that some conservative Christians might have to send their
children to public schools. Moreover, as Tim LaHaye argues, conservative
Christians might also want to redeem what they think was formerly “the
greatest educational system in the world”, 51 which has now been “taken over
by secularists.” 52
However, in light of the following quote from the Heritage
Foundation, creationist and pro-abstinence activism at the public schools
level take on another dimension:

The greatest changes in policy occur because of

fundamental changes in public attitudes. Therefore, the
policymaker’s foremost job is to be an entrepreneur of
ideas. Once public attitudes are changed to support
conservative policies, legislative passage becomes far
easier. By contrast, legislative victories without a change in
underlying ideas are likely to have a marginal effect.
[Consequently] at least half of legislative proposals should
be crafted exclusively with the intent of altering the terms
of debate; actual passage of such proposals is not
important. 53

Likewise, local and national activism aiming at imposing the teaching of

abstinence and creationism in public schools can be seen not only in terms of
98 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________
their actual efficiency but also in the way they alter the nature of debates on
education. For creationism and abstinence are not only educational issues in
their own right, but they also are both tools in the “culture war” waged by
conservative Christians against what they define as “secular humanism” or
“liberalism.” Thus, both creationism and abstinence operate as ideological
tools in the conservative Christian attempt to bring back religion in the
schools and in politics on the state and federal levels. By advocating
abstinence education programmes that promote a “restrictive” sexual
ideology, as well as creationist teaching, conservative Christians influence
school curricula by their religious beliefs. Moreover, the debates often
generated by these attempts on local, national, educational or judicial levels,
provide a public platform for their discourses which through carefully
directed media exposure often make conservative Christians appear more
numerous and powerful than they actually are. Thus, they strengthen their
influence and visibility on the public stage through both creationism and
abstinence discourses.
Finally, another important similarity between creationism and
abstinence, which can help to account for their appeal, is the fact that they
both provide “comforting” answers to fundamental human anxieties about
life, love and happiness. The main contention of creationism is the faith in
the inerrancy of the Bible. As explained in Chapter II, proponents of
creationism believe that the Bible can only be true in its entirety, not only
partly. Believing in creationism therefore ensures the credibility of the Bible
even regarding the question of our origins. Thus creationism substitutes the
“comforting” notion that humans and earth were created by a purposeful and
loving God to the apparent arbitrariness of the answers provided by evolution
to questions such as “‘Who am I?’ or ‘Where do I come from?’” 54
Abstinence provides a similarly comforting pattern by ensuring its
proponents that, by being abstinent, they will be sure to marry their “true
love” with whom they will live “till death do they part,” a life free of
concerns like divorce, teen pregnancy or STDs. As W. S. Pillow argues,

[a]bstinence-only programmes promise to offer a definitive

answer to the problem of teen sexuality and teen
pregnancy, to bring clarity to ongoing debates about sex
education, and to address the decline of values and welfare
dependency seen as rampant in some communities. The
solution is simple, teach kids not to have sex until
marriage. 55

As will be further examined in the coming chapter, such unquestionable

statements, like the religion to which they also belong, have a growing appeal
in a postmodern society of uncertainties which fails to soothe the anxieties of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 99
______________________________________________________________
individuals already weakened by difficult economic conditions and
metaphysical uncertainty.
This chapter has shown that the rhetorical arguments deployed
around the two conservative narratives of creationism and abstinence follow
similar patterns and confirm each other. Both discourses reassert the
authority of God and of the family over children. Creationism, in the way it is
described as boosting self-confidence, is defined as an important tool in the
prevention of premarital sex, while abstinence reinforces creationism by
stating that Christians are children of God who should not defile their bodies
by “fornication.” They also both state forcefully the adamant difference of
nature between animals and humans. Creationism and abstinence education
are also used by conservative Christians as tools to counteract the decline of
“traditional American values” through a pro-family agenda. They both
operate, by using similar grassroots and national strategies, on the same level:
education. Moreover, those two issues contribute to the instrumental self-
representation of conservative Christians as a “persecuted minority” waging
war to redeem America by bringing back religion to the school and the
nation, and help them shift the public debate on education in a more
religiously and conservatively oriented direction. Finally, creationist and pro-
abstinence discourses answer postmodern anxieties about life, love and
happiness by religious certainties. But what is more significant for this study
is how the more recent conservative Christian discourse on sex-education and
abstinence took over the older issue of creationism both to strengthen its own
statements and to rejuvenate the creationist discourse. Thus, pro-abstinence
discourses reinforce and give new appeal to the conservative Christian belief
in creationism. Likewise, as will be examined in the next chapter, pro-
abstinence discourse gives new dimension to teenager’s and the community’s
need for faith, certainties and religious authority in postmodern American
society.

Notes
1
LaHaye, 1998a, p.31.
2
In a Roundtable interview on August 1, 2005, President Bush answered the
following to questions regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design and
evolution: “THE PRESIDENT: […] I felt like both sides ought to be properly
taught. Q: Both sides should be properly taught? THE PRESIDENT: Yes,
people - so people can understand what the debate is about. Q: So the answer
accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution? THE
PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different
schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting - you’re asking me whether or not
people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.” The
100 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________

Washington Post, ‘Transcript of Roundtable Interview,’ Washington

Post.com. 2 August 2005, viewed on 27 February 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200899_5.html>
3
The Discovery Institute, to which most intelligent design proponents are
affiliated, explains on its website that “the theory of intelligent design holds
that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by
an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”
(www.discovery.org). On December 20, 2005, the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover
Area School District that teaching intelligent design violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States because it cannot be defined as science and “cannot uncouple
itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District: Memorandum Opinion, 20 December 2005, viewed on 10 June
2007, <http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>, p.136.
4
R Hagelin, ‘The Culture War: A Five-Point Plan for Parents,’ 9 August
2005a, viewed on 15 February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed080905a.cfm>
5
LaHaye, 1998a, p.39.
6
Hagelin, 2005a.
7
The ICR defines itself as “an organization devoted to research, publication,
and teaching in those fields of science particularly relevant to the study of
origins” (www.icr.org). The position it defends is defined as “young earth
creationism” and maintains that following Genesis the earth is not billion of
years old but only thousands of years old (that it between 6000 and 10000
years).
8
J Bergman, ‘The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity,’ June
2001, viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-336.pdf>
9
C Raymo, Skeptics and True Believers, Walker, New York, 1998, pp.187-
188.
10
Bergman, 2001.
11
D Lecourt, L’Amérique entre la Bible et Darwin, Presses Universitaires de
France, Paris, 1998, p.26.
12
K Ham, ‘‘Back To Genesis’ The Hope For America?’ 7 April 1993,
viewed on 15 February 2007, < http://www.icr.org/article/731/>
13
H M Morris, ‘The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution,’ 1
July 1975, viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/article/71/>
14
Lecourt, 1998, p.137.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 101
______________________________________________________________

15
T LaHaye and D Noebel, Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New
Millennium, Word Publishing, Nashville, 2000, p.76.
16
LaHaye, 1998a, p.39.
17
ibid., p.39.
18
ibid., p.39.
19
ibid., p.23.
20
ibid., p.23, author’s brackets.
21
ibid., p.23.
22
ibid., p.20.
23
ibid., p.40.
24
Meeker, 2002, p.71.
25
Meeker, 1999, p.ix.
26
LaHaye, 1998a, p.32.
27
J Morris, ‘Are Schools Teaching Evolution Well Enough?’ 1 June 1998,
viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/article/1181/>, emphasis in the
original.
28
Hagelin, 2005a.
29
G Bhattacharyya, Sexuality and Society: An Introduction, Routledge,
London and New York, 2002, p.105.
30
Moran, 2000, p.6.
31
Godbeer, 2002, p.55.
32
LaHaye, 1998a, p.20.
33
ibid., p.163.
34
Fagan, 2006, p.7.
35
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
36
R Rector ‘Implementing Welfare Reform and Promoting Marriage,’ in S M
Butler and K R Holmes (eds), Priorities for the President, 2001, viewed on
12 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Mandate/upload/Priorities-for-
the-President-pdf.pdf>, p.82.
37
H M Morris, ‘All Nations Under God,’ October 2002, viewed on 19 June
2007, <http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-166.pdf>, emphasis in the original.
38
ibid.
39
ibid.
40
ibid.
41
Morris, 1975.
42
Ham, 1993.
43
LaHaye, 1998, p.23.
44
Ham, 1993.
102 Abstinence and Creationism
______________________________________________________________

45
W R Bird, ‘Evolution in Public Schools and Creation in Student’s Home:
What Creationist Can Do (Part II),’ 1979b, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.icr.org/articles/all/2/>
46
Kintz, 1997, p.73.
47
W R Bird, ‘Evolution in Public Schools and Creation in Student’s Home:
What Creationist Can Do (Part I),’ 1979a, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.icr.org/article/151/>
48
LaHaye, 1998a, p.37.
49
Pillow, 2004, p.183.
50
Hagelin, 2005a.
51
LaHaye and Noebel, 2000, p.100.
52
ibid., p.102.
53
Rector, 2001, p.90.
54
LaHaye, 1998a, p.39.
55
Pillow, 2004, p.183.
 Chapter 7
Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority

Religion is a need of the spirit. People feel so lost in the

vastness of the world, so thrown about by forces they do
not understand; and the complex of historical forces, artful
and subtle as they are, so escapes the common sense that in
the moments that matter only the person who has
substituted religion with some other moral force succeeds
in saving the self from disaster. 1

In her introduction to the collection of essays Media, Culture and

the Religious Right, Linda Kintz, drawing on sociologist John Fulton’s
analysis of the writings of the Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci,
highlights the sense of “agency” provided by religion and how Religious
Right leaders understood and used it. One of the main contribution Kintz
takes from Gramsci is the idea that he

avoided the mistakes many Marxist analysts had made, as

they too had often dismissed religious belief as
unenlightened superstition and overlooked the powerful
sense of agency such belief provided. As Fulton argues,
Gramsci took seriously “as a source of power, the self-
understanding of religious groups and the interpretations of
the world in which those groups actualize their
existence.” 2,3

Gramsci believed that

[o]ver a certain period of history in certain specific

historical conditions religion has been and continues to be a
“necessity,” a necessary form taken by the will of the
popular masses and a specific way of rationalizing the
world and real life, which provided the general framework
for real practical activity. 4

He specifies that it is not the official Christianity of the Church which can
fulfill this need but what he defines as the “naïve Christianity” 5 of the people.
In his view to succeed, new ideologies have to provide a replacement for this
popular religion and follow the pattern used by Christianity to achieve
hegemonic status.
104 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
The leaders of the Religious Right have not tried to replace religion
but have instead used its “power,” in particular the one derived from the
strong emotional nature of evangelicalism, to build their appeal. This is often
ignored by academics who dismiss religion as “unenlightened superstition.” 6
Kintz remarks that Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian
Coalition, learnt much from Gramsci. 7 She argues elsewhere that academics
are often unable to understand the appeal of the Religious Right because they
are

not used to understanding beliefs that are not expressed

according to [their] own scholarly expectations. By
dismissing arguments that are not articulated in the terms
with which [they] are familiar, [they] overlook the very
places where politics come to matter most: at the deepest
levels of the unconscious, in our bodies, through faith, and
in relation to the emotions. 8

In this she reflects Gramsci’s idea that

[t]he intellectual’s error consists in believing that one […]

can be an intellectual (and not a pure pedant) if distinct and
separate from the people-nation, that is, without feeling the
elementary passions of the people […]. 9

Conservative Christians understand this necessity to appeal to faith, feelings

and passions in order to yield political power, a necessity analysed by
Gramsci in the following terms:

One cannot make politics-history without this passion,

without this connection of feeling between intellectuals and
people-nation. In the absence of such a nexus the relations
between the intellectual and the people-nation are, or are
reduced to, relationships of a purely bureaucratic and
formal order; the intellectuals become a caste or a
priesthood […]. 10

This comment can be connected to the very strong trend of anti-

intellectualism in American conservatism well exemplified by G.W. Bush’s
development of his image of simple “Texas cowboy” in spite of the fact that
he comes from an old political family and attended an Ivy League school.
Talking about faith, sexuality and family life, conservative Christian
leaders ground their discourse in this “passionate” dimension of daily life and
“irrationality” instead of actually dealing with more structural and seemingly
 Claire Greslé-Favier 105
______________________________________________________________
more remote questions like the economy or social policies. Through pro-
abstinence discourses, for example, they construct sexuality as “sacred” and
“divine” and use religion to both “rationalize” and elevate the human
experience of sexuality. Contrary to the permissive sexual ideology which
emphasises freedom of sexual choice rather than traditional morality, through
the demand for abstinence and a narrow view of marriage they provide
frames that allow conservative Christians to actualize their experience in their
own spiritual terms. Abstinence can allow Christians to construct their
sexuality in a way that is more relevant to their own experience of the world
than that offered by a permissive sexual ideology.
The LaHayes and Meeker illustrate this process when they describe
marital sexuality as a “sacred” experience. In the LaHayes’ words sexuality is

the sublime, intimate interlocking of mind, heart, emotions,

and body in a passionately eruptive climax that engulfs the
participants in a wave of innocent relaxation that
thoroughly expresses their love. The experience is a mutual
“knowledge” of each other that is sacred, personal, and
intimate. Such encounters were designed by God for
mutual blessing and enjoyment. 11

Meeker also explains that “many teens describe sex as being spiritual. […]
Sex is sacred and something extraordinary, during which a connection occurs
beyond human comprehension.” 12
In both their glorification of marital sex and their rejection of
premarital sex, the LaHayes and Meeker inscribe themselves in a
dichotomous vision of sexuality inherited from the Puritans, one very
different, for example, from the traditional Catholic vision of sexuality. In his
book Sexual Revolution in Early America historian Richard Godbeer explains
that though Puritans condemned extramarital sex staunchly, they did hold a
very positive view of marital sexuality. This contrasts with the vision of
sexually repressed Puritans presented by authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne.
However, Puritan teachers, Godbeer writes, did warn their pupils “that even
marital sex could become illicit if a husband and wife allowed their desire for
each other to eclipse their love of God.” 13 In his view what Puritans tried to
achieve was not

to repress their sexual instincts but to keep them within

ordained borders. Although determined to root out “wild
love” as unruly and pernicious, they extolled love “of
God’s own planting” as one of humanity’s greatest
blessings. Even marital sex had the potential to become
“wild” if not appropriately managed: all human affections
106 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
must serve and remain subordinate to spiritual ardor. But a
symbiotic passion for one’s earthly spouse and heavenly
bridegroom [Christ] was truly a “garden of love and garden
joy.” 14

Contrary to the Catholic tradition, the Puritans did not extol chastity and
disagreed with the idea that “marital sex constituted a necessary evil.” 15
Moreover, they considered a fulfilling marital sexual life as the best
prevention against extramarital sexuality. This idea of keeping sexuality
“within ordained borders” is at the core of contemporary pro-abstinence
discourses.
Through these discourses, conservative Christians define the borders
within which sexuality can be practiced. For them, as already mentioned, the
only appropriate frame for sexuality is a lifelong faithful heterosexual
monogamous marriage. Within this union sexuality should be enjoyed, and
some forms of contraception can be considered acceptable by some leaders,
like the LaHayes. Outside of those borders fall all forms of extra-marital
sexuality: premarital sex, infidelity, homosexuality and cohabitation. Divorce
could also pose a significant problem; however, conservative Christian
leaders tend not to stigmatise divorcees too openly, as doing so might
alienate a significant proportion of their followers. Indeed, a 2004 poll led by
the evangelical Barna Group found that

[a]lthough many Christian churches attempt to dissuade

congregants from getting a divorce, the research confirmed
a finding identified by Barna a decade ago (and further
confirmed through tracking studies conducted each year
since): born-again Christians have the same likelihood of
divorce as do non-Christians. Among married born-again
Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is
identical to the outcome among married adults who are not
born-again: 35%. 16

Within the boundaries of abstinence and marriage, sexuality is coded

as “sacred,” “pure,” “moral” and as an expression of “true love” and
selflessness. Outside those boundaries it takes on the opposite connotations
of “promiscuity” and “immorality” and of an expression of “lust” and
“selfishness.” Hence, sexuality within “traditional” marriage is defined as
morally superior to any other form of sexuality, as it is seen as being the
expression of God’s will and not of human lust and selfishness, God being
the only source of morality and not man himself. Besides, it is not only the
morality of sexuality which is appraised here, but also the nature of the
relationship expressed by it. As noted earlier, for conservative Christians,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 107
______________________________________________________________
“True Love Waits”. A love which cannot abstain and wait to be expressed
within the boundaries of marriage is not “true”, but is in fact selfish and
lustful. Hence, in the LaHayes’ view, those who do not wait until marriage to
have sex will perhaps not give up “true love”, since such a statement would
make “secondary virginity” irrelevant, but they at least give up the unique
sexual communion intended by God for those who respect his will. Not being
abstinent would thus “cheapen” their marital sexuality and make it
incomplete forever. As the LaHayes sum it up,

[p]remature sexual expression is the supreme example of

sacrificing on the altar of the immediate that which is
permanent. It may produce incomparable excitement and
thrill for the moment, but in the long run it produces
heartache, grief, and sometimes physical pain. 17

Moreover, they note in The Act of Marriage that their findings on this issue
in a survey that they compared with a poll by Redbook Magazine from 1975,
show that premarital sex may hinder sexual adjustment and that Christians
seem to have better sex than non-Christians. 18
In the style of self-help books, abstinence can thus be seen as the
surest method to follow to achieve “true love” and marital bliss. This idea is
also reasserted by the CBAE extension of requirements of 2006, which
repeatedly claimed that there is a direct correlation between sexual abstinence
before marriage and marital happiness. For example, it demanded from its
grantees that they teach “the importance of abstinence in the teen years to
long-term healthy and happy marriages.” 19 In a world where marital love,
though threatened by divorce, is still seen by many as the ultimate path to
happiness, such a certainty can indeed provide a significant sense of agency.
Although the Catholic Church defines sexual boundaries in a similar way, its
theologians only equate sexuality with “true love” when its procreative
dimension is not counteracted. In stating that “the two dimensions of conjugal
union, the unitive (sic.) and the procreative, cannot be artificially separated
without damaging the deepest truth of the conjugal act itself” 20 , the Catholic
Church differs clearly from the LaHayes, who condone contraceptive use
within marriage. Positions similar to that of the Catholic Church can also be
found inside the conservative Christian community itself, thus emphasising
that sexual boundaries are not universal even among conservative Christians.
To help their readers in locating these boundaries, the LaHayes
provide an exhaustive description of what is and is not acceptable before and
after marriage in matters of sexual practices. In Raising Sexually Pure Kids
they define what they consider as being abstinence according to the Bible’s
teaching. For example, they warn teens about the “law of emotional
progression” a concept they take from sex advisor George B. Eager.
108 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
According to Eager “when a guy and a girl spend time alone together, the
relationship tends steadily to move toward greater physical intimacy.” 21 In
his view, echoed by the LaHayes, the point of “no-return” is reached when
couples move from the “simple goodnight kiss” to “prolonged kissing.” 22 If
teens go beyond this point, he claims, they will inevitably have sex. From
this, Eager and the LaHayes deduce that anything more sexual than a “simple
goodnight kiss” is reserved to marriage, and to avoid temptation teens should
avoid being alone together.
The proscription the LaHayes put on everything that follows this
goodnight kiss is, quite logically, extended to homosexual acts, as they are
condemned in the Bible and are completely outside the frame of marital sex -
Leviticus 20:13. It is extended to masturbation as well.
Masturbation is a complex issue for the LaHayes. And it is, in their
writings, made even more complex as they write that: “the Bible is silent on
this subject; therefore it is dangerous to be dogmatic.” 23 Yet the story of
Onan - Gen 38, 8-10 - in the book of Genesis was often used to condemn
masturbation, which owes its name “onanism” to this episode. Why the
LaHayes do not use this story is confusing and is probably due to the fact that
in their book they do not prohibit masturbation radically. After much
consideration the LaHayes come to the conclusion that masturbation is not an
acceptable practice for a Christian male for the following reason. First,
masturbation involves lustful thoughts which are condemned by the Bible.
Besides,

[g]uilt is a universal aftermath of masturbation unless one

has been brainwashed by the humanistic philosophy that
does not believe in a God-given conscience or in right or
wrong. 24

This guilt will hinder the spiritual growth of the man who masturbates, just as
premarital sex will. Masturbation is also a disincentive to marriage. A man
who satisfies his sexual drives himself will not feel the need to marry for
sexual fulfillment as strongly. The LaHayes argue that there are enough
reasons not to marry (financial, social) in our society without adding this one
to the list. For these reasons masturbation is also subjected to the requirement
of abstinence.
By contrasting different Christian visions on masturbation, the
LaHayes pragmatically moderate their interdiction through the conclusion
reached by a group of youth pastors that

if an unmarried man could masturbate for physical release

only and without entertaining lustful thoughts, it should not
 Claire Greslé-Favier 109
______________________________________________________________
be prohibited or associated with guilt. Even then, it should
not become an addictive habit. 25

But the door they open is indeed small as the ability of dissociating sexual
fantasies from masturbation seems very illusory. Here, their argument seems
to be more inspired by pragmatism than by theology, probably
acknowledging the difficulty even for Christian males not to resort to
masturbation in times of celibacy. This supposed biological need of an outlet
for the overstock of sperm stored in males’ bodies is further acknowledged
by the LaHayes as they explain that God provided men with a “pure” way of
release through “wet dreams.” Of course those wet dreams will most likely
be caused by a dream of a sexual nature, but

[d]reams are subconscious, and a boy need not feel guilt or

shame when this experience occurs for God knows he has
no control over his brain while sleeping. However, he
should be aware that sexually stimulating pictures, movies,
or stories can create dreams that bring on these experiences
more frequently. 26

Echoing “secular” sexual advisors, the LaHayes recommend that

parents talk with their sons about “wet dreams” matter-of-factly, and explain
to them what God intended them for, so that they do not feel guilty about it.
However, their position on masturbation emphasises the fact that for them it
is not only the body which should be kept pure or “abstinent,” but also the
mind which has to be kept clear of “lustful thoughts.” Consequently, they
strongly condemn pornography as leading to lustful thoughts and - echoing
the arguments of some feminists - to rape and sexual abuse.
Nothing is written by the LaHayes about female masturbation. Most
likely because as women do not “store” sperm they do not have any
“biological need” for sexual release, thus masturbation can never be
considered acceptable, as it would not serve any other purpose than “lustful”
ones. In spite of the fact that the LaHayes explain to girls that not having sex
does not hurt a man physically, throughout their writing they still support the
idea that men have more intense sexual needs than women.
With The Act of Marriage, the LaHayes provide Christian readers
with another set of boundaries and recommendations to be applied after
marriage. Through both books they contribute to keeping the sexuality of
their readers and parishioners “within ordained borders.” They provide them
with guidelines of what is, according to their faith, acceptable or not
regarding sexual behaviour, thus limiting the possibility for their readers to
negotiate their own relation to sexual morality. Yet if such a strict religious
frame can appear oppressive, one should not overlook its potentially
110 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
empowering dimension, as too many possibilities might sometimes prove
more of a hindrance to freedom than boundaries that appear justified. Indeed,
instead of losing time and energy pondering what one may or may not do in a
realm of endless possibilities, abstinence provides clear frames grounded in
faith and certainties. This can appear particularly valuable in a postmodern
culture of relative sexual freedom where practices not so long ago deemed
extreme, like sadomasochism or swapping, are openly represented in the
media. For Christians who might feel alienated by such practices and media
depiction, framing sexuality, as Rebecca Hagelin or the LaHayes do, by just
stating that “sex outside of marriage is just plain wrong” 27 might help them
cope with a deeply unsettling environment. Besides, by constructing marital
sexuality as “sacred,” abstinence can provide, for those who inscribe
themselves within conservative Christian sexual boundaries, a reassuring
sense of moral and emotional superiority in a postmodern world where
hierarchies defined by gender and family roles are constantly redefined. It
also provides for religious and conservative leaders the power to establish
what is sexually acceptable or not regarding what they interpret as being
God’s law.
Defining the boundaries of sexual respectability has always been one
of the key functions of abstinence before marriage. Through pro-abstinence
discourses the authority of the church to celebrate marriage, which defines
the threshold of “legitimate” sexual intimacy, is reasserted. Interestingly, this
function was already at the heart of the debate on premarital sexuality in
colonial America, a debate Puritans had themselves imported from England.

Indeed, roughly one-fifth of English brides in the late

sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were already
pregnant by the time they formally married. Widespread
premarital intercourse did not represent a wanton rejection
of moral propriety by ordinary people. Instead, it arose
from a common belief that the boundary between illicit and
licit sex was crossed once a couple became committed to
each other. The Church of England, however, insisted that
couples should remain abstinent until they were formally
wed. Premarital intimacy had political as well as moral
implications since it brought into question the authority of
the local clergyman - and, by extension, the church as a
whole - to control the moment at which a man and a
woman became a couple. 28

The stakes are the same today for abstinence proponents who claim the
superiority of God over man and defend the view that it is not the individual
who can decide what morally fits him/herself, but rather the Bible and
 Claire Greslé-Favier 111
______________________________________________________________
religion, which are the sources of all morality. In this perspective, sexuality
should only be marital and sanctioned by God and “His” church, through a
sacrament performed by “His” minister.
With their definition of marital sex as “sacred,” and thus part of a
“spiritual” or religious experience, pro-abstinence discourses reassert the
authority of religious leaders over sexuality. By promoting strict codes of
sexual behaviors conservative Christian leaders emphasise the difference
between their experience of religion and the one promoted by more “pick and
choose” types of Christianity. They affirm their literal reading of the Bible
and proclaim that the word of God cannot be adapted to fit one’s life choices
or inclinations. As mentioned earlier, such strict visions of religion can have
a significant appeal in our societies, especially as some might see as
incoherent the more liberal positions of many churches. It is understandable
that some Catholics, for example, might feel alienated by congregations that
lead a life far remote from the teaching of the Catechism. This might be why
Catholicism, as well as Judaism and Islam, have seen in the past decades a
significant development of their radical trends, be it the schismatic movement
of Mgr Lefebvre or Salafism. By requiring their followers to be abstinent
before marriage in order to obey God’s law, religious leaders assert their faith
as a source of unquestionable authority and truth, whereas more liberal trends
might disturb followers in search of clear boundaries. This insistence on the
non-negotiable dimension of religion is at the heart of a conservative
Christianity grounded on the inerrant reading of the Bible.
The reinforcement of the authority of the church carried out by pro-
abstinence discourses operates both on a spiritual and a pragmatic level. It
reasserts not only the spiritual authority of the minister, but the necessity of
his function and of his church, among other things, for the celebration of
weddings. This more “material” reinforcement of the need for churches and
ministers by pro-abstinence discourses is not limited to this but extends to
numerous church initiatives and institutions, especially those concerned with
children.
This is well illustrated by the LaHayes who, in a chapter entitled
“How to Raise Virtuous Children,” give a clear description of the role played
by the church in keeping children abstinent. First of all, they advise parents to
keep their children “active in a Bible-teaching church.” 29 If the church they
attend is not a “bible-teaching” one, that is one that teaches that the Bible is
inerrant, then they should look for a new one to provide the best frame for
their children to remain “virtuous.” A church which does not interpret the
Bible as inerrant might be too liberal regarding sexual boundaries, among
other things. The LaHayes also add that parents should “never criticize [their]
church within hearing of [their] children” 30 so as not to undermine its
authority. In the same manner as parents should not contradict each other in
front of their children they should not criticise their church thus establishing
112 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
it as a key influence in their child’s education. The LaHayes also recommend
that parents attend religious services regularly and get involved in activities
organised by the congregation, a necessary requirement for a church to have
any lasting influence on its members. For the LaHayes there is a direct
correlation between church attendance and other religious involvement and
“promiscuity.” Citing statistics claiming that church going youths are less
sexually active, they conclude that,

[e]vidently, the popularly quoted statistic that “51 percent

of girls and 63 percent of boys” are sexually active in their
teens is so high because many of these teens do not attend
church. 31

They strengthen this statement by the following “dramatic” comment:

Many of those parents who lamented that they “lost their

teens to the world,” admitted they became careless about
church attendance and involvement. Careless church
attendance can be fatal to your children’s lives. 32

In this passage the LaHayes use a syllogism going along the following lines:
teens who do not attend church regularly are more sexually active; many
sexually active teens die from STDs; therefore many teens who do not attend
church regularly will die from a STD. Moreover, one can infer that those
odds are increased by other risk behaviors like drug use, etc, that teens who
are “lost to the world” are, in the LaHayes’ view, likely to practice. Though
such reasoning can seem far-fetched, it is interesting to see the way the
authors use it as a way to assert that church attendance is literally a matter of
life and death, if not of eternal damnation.
Another crucial role of the church can be found in the opportunities
it provides for young people to socialise with other Christians who share
similar values through church youth groups or youth summer camps. The
LaHayes encourage parents to keep their children active in religious groups
which, consistently, are bound to be much less sexually oriented than secular
environments, and where they will benefit from the teachings and influence
of church leaders. 33 The idea that religious youths are less sexually active
was supported by the governmental website 4parents.gov, which encouraged
parents to keep their children active in religious activities as, it claimed,
“teens who are actively involved in a religious organization, who study faith,
and pray or worship are less likely to begin early sexual activity.” 34
Finally, the LaHayes advise parents to keep their children out of a
public school system controlled by “secular humanists” who teach evolution,
and sex-education and are “hostile” to religion and morals, and instead enroll
 Claire Greslé-Favier 113
______________________________________________________________
them in Christian schools or homeschool them. 35 Here again one of the
arguments is that “unquestionably Christian schools graduate more virgins
than do public schools.” 36
Thus, through pro-abstinence discourses, the LaHayes reassert the
role of the church in the community and reclaim the role of ministers as
educators. This enables them to question the qualification of secular
organisations dealing with children in matter of moral education and to
attempt to attract more children in their sphere of influence. Advising parents
that a religious environment will be more efficient in preserving their
children’s chastity and even their lives, they also seek to ensure that Christian
children are exposed to an all-Christian environment and to enlarge their
congregation. If they succeed this is likely to strengthen their influence over
younger generations.
By appealing to a radical form of religion strongly grounded in a
passionate reading of the scriptures, conservative Christian leaders have
succeeded in gathering a significant number of followers. Pro-abstinence
discourses play a role in this appeal on the one hand in the way they
contribute to the self-definition of conservative Christians as being children
of God and not the “random products” of evolution, and on the other hand by
contributing to the “actualization” of their experience of sexuality. They do
so by providing believers with narratives of human origins and of sexuality
they can better identify with than the one offered by the media and popular
culture.
The vision of sexuality they offer is inscribed in the Puritan heritage
and does not present sexuality as an apparently limitless realm of possibilities
but as a space clearly limited by moral and religious boundaries. Likewise,
creationism leaves no place for doubt and provides clear-cut answers to
metaphysical questions. Within these “ordained borders” conservative
Christians can delineate what sexual and non-sexual practices are deemed
acceptable or not and be reassured of what “true love” is and what ways and
means will enable them to reach it and nurture it. It also provides them with
the sense that their sexuality is not only the expression of their animal nature,
but the sacred expression of a marriage blessed by God. A feeling of moral
and religious superiority can be the outcome of such certainties. This
delimitation of love and sexuality, while it can provide believers with a sense
of “agency”, also constitutes the appeal of conservative Christian leaders and
reasserts their influence over their followers. Pro-abstinence discourses
provide a practical reinforcement of those leaders’ authority by reasserting
the literally “vital” role of the church and religious infrastructures in the
community and by reclaiming the role of church leaders as educators. They
also reassert the need for a strong and respected church leadership which will
have a lasting influence over the coming generations.
114 Abstinence, Faith and Religious Authority
______________________________________________________________
Notes
1
A Gramsci, quoted in Kintz and Lesage, 1998, pp.18-19.
2
J Fulton, ‘Religion and Politics in Gramsci: An Introduction,’ Sociological
Analysis, 1987, 48 (3): 197-216, p.214.
3
Kintz and Lesage, 1998, p.17.
4
A Gramsci, A Gramsci Reader, David Forgacs, (ed), Lawrence and Wishart,
London, 1999, p.337.
5
ibid., p.337.
6
Kintz and Lesage, 1998, p.17.
7
ibid., p.17.
8
Kintz, 1997, p.5.
9
Gramsci, 1999, p.349.
10
ibid., p.350.
11
LaHaye, 1998b, p.26.
12
Meeker, 2002, p.82.
13
Godbeer, 2002, p.55.
14
ibid., p.55, my emphasis.
15
ibid., p.55.
16
Barna Group, ‘Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are
Non-Christians,’ 8 September 2004, viewed on 8 March 2006,
<http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUp
dateID=216&PageCMD=Print>
17
LaHaye, 1998a, p.45.
18
LaHaye, 1998b, pp.32, 291.
19
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.11.
20
Pontifical Council for the Family, ‘The Truth and Meaning of Human
Sexuality, Guidelines for Education within the Family,’ 8 December 1995,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/r
c_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html> , emphasis in the
original)
21
G B Eager Love, Dating and Sex: What Teens Want to Know, Mailbox
Club Books, Valdosta, 1989, p.64.
22
ibid., p.64.
23
LaHaye, 1998a, p.105.
24
ibid., p.105.
25
ibid., p. 107.
26
ibid., p.104.
27
Hagelin, 2005b, p.149.
28
Godbeer, 2002, p.3.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 115
______________________________________________________________

29
LaHaye, 1998a, p.40.
30
ibid., p.41.
31
ibid., p.41.
32
ibid., p.41.
33
ibid., p.42.
34
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Parents, Speak Up! Guide
for Discussing Abstinence Sex, and Relationships, 2005a, viewed on 6 March
2007, <http://www.4parents.gov/downloads/parentguide.pdf>, p.4.
35
LaHaye, 1998a, p.43.
36
ibid., p.44.
 Chapter 8
Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell

Abstinence is often presented as being part of conservative

Christians’ “pro-family agenda,” and rightly so, since pro-abstinence
discourses play a crucial role in the promotion of the traditional family cell in
the way they construct marriage as the only possible frame for sexuality and
as the base of a healthy society. It is important to keep in mind that the major
goal of abstinence education is not so much to forbid premarital sexual
activity than to promote marriage and prepare young people to build
traditional family structures.
This promotion of the traditional family is performed through two
major types of arguments which, on the one hand present the patriarchal
family cell as the only possible frame for keeping children abstinent before
marriage, and on the other reassert the control of parents over children
through the defense of the concept of “parental rights.”
One of the central narratives of abstinence-only-before-marriage
discourses is the reinforcement of the “fantasy” of the existence of a
traditional family cell. The term “fantasy” is apt. As many scholars dealing
with the Religious Right underlined, conservative Christian discourses
surrounding the traditional family have always pointed toward an idealised
past before the sexual and feminist revolution when the traditional “biblical”
family was the accepted social norm. According to conservative Christians,
to function in a “biblical” way the family has to follow the statement of St
Paul that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). However, this view
of the patriarchal family structure as “biblical” has been questioned on
several grounds. First, for its historical inaccuracy, which underlines its
fantastical nature, sociologist Janice M. Irvine explains that

the “traditional family” that is so celebrated by

conservatives and fundamentalists is less than historically
accurate. It is […] a nostalgic and idealized late nineteenth-
century middle-class family in which men and women
operated in “separate spheres.” 1

Secondly, this vision has been criticised for its interpretation of the view of
the family developed in the Bible. As theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether
explains

“family values” is a misleading and partisan term, used by

groups that champion a particular model of family -
specifically, one based on male headship and female
118 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
subordination. These groups assume that their model of the
family is biblical. But actually there is little relationship
between this model and the Bible: the historical Jesus in
fact appears quite often to have endorsed views that might
be characterized as anti-family. 2

Further on, she explains that the modern nuclear family composed of father,
mother and children living together under the same roof did not exist in
biblical times, when people lived in “households” that also included other
kin, like grandparents, as well as servants and slaves.
In spite of these historical inaccuracies, Irvine notes that the concept
of “family values” and the support of the traditional family unit constitute a
useful rhetorical tool for conservative Christians. 3 Instead of formulating the
opposition to gay rights, feminism and teen sex in negative terms - anti-gay,
anti-feminist, anti-sex education - it groups those issues under the positive
term of “pro-family,” a similar rhetorical strategy as turning “anti”-abortion
into “pro”-life. Thus, pro-abstinence activism, instead of being an anti-sex-
before-marriage movement, falls under the more positive umbrella of the
defense of “family values.”
One of the key functions of abstinence-before-marriage is the
external control of the sexual life of the human individual. As mentioned
earlier, this had already been the issue at stake in debates around premarital
sexuality in colonial America, where religious authorities used marriage to
establish their power in determining sexual legitimacy. The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, supported
by a Republican Congress and reauthorized in 2003, required abstinence
programmes funded by the government to teach that “a mutually faithful
monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of
human sexual activity.” 4 With this statement, all forms of extra-marital
sexuality were defined as illegitimate. This did not only include sexually
active teenagers, but also cohabiting couples as well as gays and lesbians, and
extra-marital relationships involving married persons. Marriage, sanctioned
by the state or the church, was thus defined as superior to any other form of
relationship involving sexuality. The same text also claimed that “marriage is
the foundation of a successful society” 5 a statement echoed by the Heritage
Foundation on its website.
For the Bush administration, as well as the Heritage Foundation,
even cohabitation, which in most cases corresponds to an unofficial form of
marriage, was defined as not being good enough, as it

is not equivalent to marriage in promoting the well-being of

children. [For] by the time they reach age 16, three quarters
of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents
 Claire Greslé-Favier 119
______________________________________________________________
separate, compared to only about one third of children born
to married parents. In the last decade, the proportion of
cohabiting mothers who eventually marry their child’s
father fell from 57 percent to 44 percent. 6

Additionally,

children growing up without a married mother and father

are about twice as likely to drop out of school, over 50
percent more likely to have a child themselves as a
teenager, and over 50 percent more likely to abuse
controlled substances. As adults, they are over 30 percent
more likely to be both out of school and out of work, and
tend to have less stable relationships. 7

On the contrary, “two-parent, married families represent the ideal

environment for raising children” 8 who will be “less likely to be depressed,
to have difficulty in school, to have behavior problems, or to use
marijuana.” 9 In the extension of the requirements for CBAE grantees
abstinence-only-education programmes are clearly envisaged as “marriage
training” programmes by requiring applicants to “teach abstinence in
preparation for marriage” 10 and to

equip participants with skills and knowledge that give them

a greater capacity to develop both healthy relationships in
the short-term and healthy marriages in the long-term. 11

Thus, abstinence-only-before-marriage education was, and still is, at the

centre of the conservative strategy of promotion of the traditional family cell
as it provides an incentive to marriage by constituting it as the only possible
frame for sexual expression and reproduction and by coding extra-marital sex
as morally wrong. An example of this is given by the governmental website
4Parents.gov, which repeatedly disqualified premarital sex as being a “poor
sexual decision” 12 and abstinence as the “best choice emotionally and
physically for all teens” 13 as it develops values such as “respect,
responsibility, and self-control.” 14 Moreover, the site encouraged parents to
tell their children that in addition to protecting them from STDs and teen
pregnancy, abstinence also allows them to avoid worrying “that the person
they are dating is only interested in them because of sex.” 15 Through such
assertions, premarital sex was equated with lust and irresponsibility. These
types of statements coming from the government were problematic as they
disqualified the experience of many citizens as “immoral.” Moreover, they
120 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
could be deeply traumatic for youths who might have intended to remain
abstinent but had been sexually abused.
The 4Parents website even went as far as asserting that married
people “enjoy a better sex life,” 16 yet they did not specify if those same
married people had been abstinent before marriage. This argument coming
from the government might appear surprising and rather out of place, as it
confuses positions of public health with sex advice. Obviously, this discourse
contradicts the cliché that sexual pleasure in marriage is killed by the routine
of the every day and parenthood. The idea that married people have better sex
than the rest of their non-married fellow citizens, though it might be
statistically true, appears in this context to be a direct confirmation of the
conservative Christian claim that marital sexuality is superior. It underscores
the LaHayes’ and mid-20th-century belief that premarital sexuality might
hinder sexual adjustment in marriage, 17 a view also promoted by the CBAE
extension which, for example, required programmes to teach that:

[N]on-marital sex can undermine the capacity for healthy

marriage, love and commitment. […] non-marital sex in
teen years may reduce the probability of a stable, happy
marriage as an adult. […] premarital sexual activity can
create a pattern of relationship instability. 18

In addition to this the LaHayes claim that premarital sex reduces

incentive to marry since “a realized need is a demotivator.” 19 After having
had sex with a woman, they argue, a man will not see the necessity of
marrying her anymore. 20 Through such statements, they reinforce the
patriarchal cliché of men being reluctant to get “trapped” into marriage and
being primarily interested in the sexual dimension of the couple relationship.
In short, pro-abstinence discourses construct chastity as an incentive to
marriage, defining it as the only appropriate and most gratifying space of
sexual expression.
Pro-abstinence discourses promote the traditional family cell by
resorting to another argument, the need for increased parental involvement.
As mentioned above, marriage is seen by conservative Christians as the ideal
living arrangement for raising children, especially as it ensures a greater
emotional stability through the presence of both parents. One of the issues
addressed by pro-abstinence discourses, which today is at the heart of the
conservative rhetoric, is the need for more parental authority and involvement
in their children’s lives. This need for parents to be the providers of frames
and boundaries is, in the view of conservative Christians, crucial in
abstinence education, as teenagers need clear guidelines and boundaries to
help them resist the messages of sexual promiscuity they are bombarded with
in contemporary American society.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 121
______________________________________________________________
Conservatives are not the only ones to underline the relevance of
frames and parental involvement after the cultural revolution of the 1960s
and its denunciation of the oppressive nature of the traditional family cell. In
her work The Body Project, An Intimate History of American Girlhood,
historian and women’s studies professor Joan Jacobs Brumberg provides the
following comment:

According to Tufts University psychologist David

Elkind, 21 our current postmodern style of family nurturance
pays little deference to the old ideal of protecting children
from life’s vicissitudes or adult knowledge. Today’s
“harried parents” expect their “hurried children” to be
autonomous, competent, and sophisticated by the time they
are adolescents. This pseudo-sophistication leads adults to
abandon the traditional position of setting limits and
forming values, particularly in matters of sex, that
characterized previous generations of parents, teachers and
female mentors. Adolescents raised in this permissive
environment become extremely stressed precisely because
they have been denied a comfortable envelope of adult
values that allows them time to adjust emotionally to their
developing bodies and new social roles. 22

In a note on this comment, Brumberg adds that “Elkind proposes that we

raise some kind of protective structure once again, a suggestion that echoes
conservative critics.” 23
Indeed, Meg Meeker does offer a similar view when she states that

[m]any parents of our generation give too much freedom

too soon to our kids because we want to teach them
autonomy. While your intentions may be rooted in love,
your teen feels just the opposite - that he is unloved.
Remember, rules and boundaries make teens feel loved.
Parents who abandon too many rules too quickly
communicate to their kids that the teens are adult enough to
make all their own decisions. Thus, teens begin acting in
“adult” ways. To them, this means drinking, doing drugs,
and having sex. 24

Though Meeker’s statement may seem exaggerated when she argues that a
liberal upbringing will inevitably lead teens to “drinking, doing drugs, and
having sex,” she does strike a chord especially in a contemporary US society
which views teens’ attitudes and behavior in rather negative terms. For
122 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
example, the 1999 study Kids These Days ’99: What Americans Really Think
About the Next Generation, led by the polling organization Public Agenda
underlined that most Americans

are deeply disappointed with “kids these days.” More than

seven in ten adults resort to words such as “rude,”
“irresponsible,” and “wild” to describe today’s teens, and
more than half also describe young children
disapprovingly. On the whole, high hopes for kids are
wanting - no more than two in five adults, parents or teens
themselves say youngsters today will grow up to make
America a better place. 25

Yet, sociologist Susannah R. Stern nuances this view by quoting studies

which show that although

some teens may admittedly deserve this characterization,

many - if not most - do not. 26 In fact, today’s adolescents
are highly ambitious and conscientious, with the majority
engaged in work, community service, and extracurricular
activities, and most aspiring to earn college degrees. 27,28

Nevertheless, the Public Agenda study also found that a majority of

Americans blame parents rather than “social forces” for what they see as the
“bad” behavior of children. In their view, most parents “have children before
they are ready,” divorce too hastily “without regard for their kids,” “equate
buying things for kids with caring for them” 29 and do not behave as
appropriate role models. Hence, the conservative view that “kids today”
behave badly and that a lack of parental involvement and parental authority is
the source of this problem meets important anxieties of a majority of
Americans, conservatives as well as liberals. Since, as liberals tend not to
address the traditionally conservative issue of parental authority and are seen
as the cause of the weakening of this authority since the 1960s, they leave
free play for conservatives to appropriate this important issue.
The fact that many parents, though wanting to get involved, might
be prevented to do so by the demands of the job market is not considered by
conservatives who defend the traditional model of the male breadwinner and
stay-at-home mother, a model which is not accessible to most Americans
anymore. Thus, in a pattern typical of conservative policies, a situation
caused by economic and social circumstances is blamed on individual
shortcomings. This way, Meeker, the LaHayes, and Hagelin, like the Bush
administration when it was in office, use pro-abstinence discourses as tools to
reassert a conservative vision of parenthood and of the family which, though
 Claire Greslé-Favier 123
______________________________________________________________
probably too strict and inaccessible for many Americans, does address crucial
needs of contemporary teenagers and feeds on the feelings of guilt and
inadequacy harbored by their parents.
Rebecca Hagelin skillfully taps those concerns when she exhorts
parents to spend more time with their families.

Our instincts tell us that individuals who live in loving

families that spend time together make for better
individuals - but how many of us actually live like we
believe it? How many moms and dads have forgotten that
what kids really want isn’t another television or more
“stuff”; what they really want - and need - is time with you.
The trips don’t have to be expensive or filled with endless
planned activities and tours, and the meals don’t have to be
fancy. They just have to be. Whether it’s taking the time for
a walk in the park or a picnic, biking, or doing something a
bit more [un]conventional like providing the perfect
environment for apple-bomb wars, you’ll be instilling in
your children loving memories, values and a sense of
security. 30

According to Hagelin what children need are not “more things” but more
parental presence. For, as both Meeker and the LaHayes explain, “children
who go home after school to an empty house,” 31 often due to parents’ long
working hours and the fact of working mothers, are too much left to their
own devices and can easily be exposed to bad influences.
One of the most noticeable consequences of this lack of supervision
is, in the LaHayes’ and in Meeker’s view, the loss of either chastity or
“reputation” that this will almost inevitably cause

[u]ntended homes, due to both parents working, provide a

dangerous environment that is […] conducive to “making
out” and […] inciting to sexual relations […]. Such places
should be expressly off limits even for the most trustworthy
teens. The Bible instructs us to “avoid every kind of evil” -
1 Thessalonians 5:22. Two teens of the opposite sex in an
empty house may not misbehave, but their unsupervised
presence together could ruin their reputations and should be
expressly forbidden. 32

The Department of Health and Human Services, in the booklet Parents,

Speak Up! Guide for Discussing Abstinence, Sex, and Relationships available
at 4Parents.gov, expressed the same concerns by telling parents that “‘first
124 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
sex’ often happens in an unsupervised area of the house.” 33 It is therefore
necessary for parents to organize their time so that this cannot happen even if
this means, as Jerry Falwell suggested as early as 1981 in his book Listen,
America!, to buy fewer “things” and to give up one salary:

Many women today say they must work for economic

reasons. Although inflation has placed a financial burden
on the family, we are overly concerned about materialistic
wealth. Many Americans consider it more important to
have several cars in the driveway, a beautiful house, and
two color television sets than have a stable home
environment for their children. 34

Consistent with a conservative perspective, Falwell implies that the

salary to be given up should be that of the mother, who should return to her
traditional role as housewife and nurturer, reasserting in the process the status
of her husband as breadwinner. Rebecca Hagelin, as well, likes reminding her
readers that “mothers and fathers are not so interchangeable as we moderns
would like to believe” 35 and of the importance for women of “putting
marriage and motherhood” 36 above their career. Further on, she thanks
Beverly LaHaye for providing her in 1987, at a time when this was not
common, with the opportunity of telecommuting. This did not entail giving
up her salary and her job at Concerned Women for America, but rather
allowed her to be at home to take care of her children.
Conservatives blame feminism for the breakdown of the traditional
family and the increasing numbers of mothers working outside the home.
However, it is not so much the wish of women to emancipate economically,
but the current capitalist and “liberal” economy that conservatives promote
which makes it less and less affordable for most women to stay at home or
for fathers to work less. Contrary to Falwell’s assertion of in the 1980s, it is
not merely a matter of sacrificing material luxuries, but of survival. In her
book Marriage, a History, historian Stephanie Coontz comments on a
statement of sociologist Frank Furstenberg that

“it’s as if marriage has become a luxury consumer item,

available only to those with the means to bring it off.
Living together or single-parenthood has become the
budget way to start a family.” 37 At the very least, marriage
is now a discretionary item that must be weighed against
other options for self-protection or economic mobility. 38

In view of this, the traditional family might well not be fit anymore, if it ever
was, to solve the problem of the isolation of children after school.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 125
______________________________________________________________
Nevertheless, here Falwell, Hagelin, Meeker and the LaHayes strike an
essential point in a time of economic uncertainty when people tend to turn
themselves back more and more to their family, the only environment that
still seems able to provide them with a sense of recognition and security.
Moreover, for today’s adults, who increasingly come from divorced families
with two working spouses, the fantasy of an ideal traditional family cell that
they will succeed in maintaining contrary to their parents, can become
increasingly attractive. Linda Kintz highlighted that:

The ability to mobilize a coherent symbolic message that is

passionately grounded in one’s family experiences (or at
least in one’s longing for such intimate and secure family
experiences) has been central to the power of [religious
conservative] discourse that elides the fact that most
families are excluded from its terms […]. 39

Additionally, the economic impossibility for most young American women

today to become housewives even if they wanted to might contribute to an
idealisation of this role in contrast to the criticism of feminists since the
sixties.
Characteristically, the reassertion of traditional gender roles found in
pro-abstinence discourses not only concerns the division of parenting and
economic tasks but also the global vision of society of conservative
Christians. For abstinence proponents, patriarchal gender roles are necessary
to the family equilibrium and a proper development of the child into a chaste
teenager. All of the abstinence discourses studied in this book are addressed
to both boys and girls. Nevertheless, under this apparent gender neutrality,
they all more or less overtly reinforce traditional notions of gender. The
necessity for pro-abstinence discourses to promote traditional gender roles is
grounded in the fact that for them gender equality and feminism are
undermining the appeal of traditional heterosexual marriage. Since the major
goal of abstinence discourses is the reinforcement of the latter, the theme of
traditional gender roles is necessarily one of its important components.
In the section of her book Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and
Conservative Evangelical Culture, investigating Christian teen magazines,
media studies professor Heather Hendershot notes that similarly to what is
often found in secular culture, it is only at puberty that children start to be
targeted as “separate species” by conservative Christian media. 40 The
LaHayes actually underline gender differences in much younger children as
well, but it is really at the beginning of adolescence that they recommend
clearly separate teachings for boys and girls in matters of sexuality and
different rules concerning dating. Part 3 of their book “How To Teach Your
Teens To be Sexually Pure” is divided into parallel sections devoted to girls
126 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
and boys like “Mother’s questions to daughters” 41 or “What boys need to
know before they start dating.” 42
The picture of gender roles drawn by the LaHayes, Meeker, Hagelin
and the programmes evaluated by the Waxman Report is one directly
inherited from the 19th century middle-class theory of the separate male and
female spheres. A striking example of this is given by the LaHayes in Raising
Sexually Pure Kids when they state:

[G]irls are romantic. From early childhood, their fantasies

are of Prince Charming and motherhood, not sex. Ask a
five-year-old girl playing with her dolls what she wants to
be when she grows up and she will probably say, “a
mommy.” She automatically thinks of family and
childhood. Ask a five-year-old boy, and his answer will
almost never be “a father.” He thinks in vocational terms of
being a fireman, a policeman, or a ball player. 43

In the LaHayes’ view girls naturally know from an early age that the sphere
to which they belong is the domestic sphere and their main roles those of
nurturers and caretakers. Conversely, boys know “instinctively” that they
belong to the public sphere and have to focus on a career that will enable
them to fulfil their roles as breadwinners. The fact that those differences
might be socially learnt, for example by inducing girls to play with “dolls,”
and not “natural,” is to the LaHayes no more than liberal and feminist
“propaganda.” 44 For them gender differences and sexual roles are given by
God 45 and it is against nature to upset them.
In the above quote, the LaHayes also imply that contrary to boys,
girls are romantic and not primarily attracted by sex but by love and
motherhood. This view was also reasserted by the CBAE extension which
recommended that abstinence-only programmes teach students that “males
and females may view sex, intimacy, and commitment differently.” 46 The
Waxman Report also contained a section citing programmes which promoted
“stereotypes that reinforce male sexual aggressiveness.” 47 In a passage
devoted to teenagers and puberty, Meg Meeker echoes the LaHayes where
she states that when

teens begin to mature sexually, they feel confused about

what to do with the strong, unfamiliar sexual feelings
washing over them. Boys begin trying to define their own
masculinity, comparing it to other boys around them and
wondering if they “measure up.” Too often, however, they
define masculinity as sexuality. Girls begin to fantasize
about romance, and use clothing, makeup, and perfume to
 Claire Greslé-Favier 127
______________________________________________________________
define their own femininity. And, too often, these
accoutrements become tools to attract the opposite sex, to
feel “sexy,” to lead to sex. 48

In her presentation of puberty and the emergence of sexual feelings, Meeker

presents sexual activity as something that comes to girls from the outside. It
is something they are led to doing by the media and boys or to gain peer
approval, not because they feel a strong physical pressure. On the contrary,
boys are presented as having “tremendous sexual urges.” 49
Similarly to the LaHayes in Raising Sexually Pure Kids, Meeker
also completely omits female masturbation, although she does treat the
question of male masturbation. This omission is rather coherent in a
perspective which considers females as always associating romance and
feelings to sexuality. Indeed, the admission that a woman masturbates, i.e.
seeks sexual pleasure for its own sake, makes it more difficult to argue
categorically that women are first and foremost interested in romantic love
and relationships rather than sex. Besides, the possibility that women might
seek men for the sole purpose of sexual gratification, like males are assumed
to do, destabilises the image of the stable female to whom the fickle male
will attach himself for life and who will civilise him by forcing him into
monogamy.
This alleged sexual aggressiveness of the male, in spite of its
threatening dimension, is associated to his role as leader and protector of his
wife. Yet the idea of a man who, while he is supposed to be the responsible
head of his family, is completely controlled by his sexual urges, which only
marriage can tame, appears somewhat paradoxical. In her insightful book
Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity, Sexuality, Race, and
Marriage, sociologist Anna Gavanas provides an interesting analysis of this
phenomenon within what she defines as the “pro-marriage” branch of the
fatherhood movement. 50 This trend defends ideas similar to those of the
Heritage Foundation. It has also been closely connected to the Bush
administration and abstinence-only programmes through Wade Horn, the co-
founder of the Fatherhood Initiative and prominent member of the marriage
movement who, as Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of
Health and Human Services, oversaw the administration of abstinence
programmes from 2001 to 2007. Gavanas argues that as long as it is
channeled through heterosexual marriage the Fatherhood Movement
considers men’s aggressive heterosexual sexuality as a positive force, which
defines them as “real men” in opposition to women or gay men. In the
tradition of a restrictive sexual ideology, they contend that when it is not
channeled, men’s sexuality leads to social disorder. Thus unmarried men are
a threat to society as they might become sexual predators and delinquents.
Consequently, Gavanas explains, marriage proponents, like the LaHayes and
128 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
the famous Christian male organization Promise Keepers, advocate marriage
in order to contain male sexuality through sexual restraint and their
responsibilities as husbands and fathers. Such reasoning provides further
ground for a traditional vision of marriage and its promotion through
abstinence discourses.
Two other types of “deviant” men coexist along with the aggressive
single man: the gay man and what Gavanas refers to as the “androgynous”
man. By questioning traditional gender roles, these men, together with
feminists, endanger the role of the father by making him redundant. Gavanas
underlines that for marriage proponents if men are not manly anymore and
merge their roles with female roles they will become superfluous.
Paradoxically, marriage proponents argue that males need to be
“domesticated” to channel their sexual aggressiveness but not so much as to
become “sissified.” 51 Therefore, the role they have to play in the family is
one that is appropriately male and not feminised, for example by practicing
“sport, religion, or other ‘manly’ activity” 52 and recreating a male culture of
their own. The notion that parenthood does not need to be divided along strict
gender lines is particularly threatening for conservative Christians, since it
provides a ground for defending gay or single parenthood as not constituting
any threat for the proper development of the child.
Emphasising the strict gender roles promoted by pro-abstinence
discourses, the Waxman Report quoted a government funded abstinence-
only-education curriculum which listed “‘Financial Support’ as one of the ‘5
Major Needs of Women,’ and ‘Domestic Support’ as one of the ‘5 Major
Needs of Men.’” 53 In spite of the fact that female salaries can no more be
considered today as “pin money” but are indispensable to maintaining many
families’ middle-class status, pro-abstinence discourses continue to present
the function of the wife as being primarily that of a stay-at-home mother. In
doing so they reassert the unique and irreplaceable nature of the male
contribution to the household and favor a family structure which precludes
divorce by strengthening female financial dependency. Since female
employment increased divorce rates by providing women with the possibility
to financially afford divorce, conservatives deduce that divorce can best be
fought by depriving women of any personal income. By reinforcing, through
pro-abstinence discourses, the stereotypes of the family as being constituted
of a male breadwinner and a housewife, conservative Christians attempt to
influence the coming generation into practicing their vision of traditional
marriage.
In a passage worth quoting at length Hagelin evokes similar
concerns when she claims that the

diabolical teachings of the radical feminist movement, […]

have robbed our society of many of the blessings God
 Claire Greslé-Favier 129
______________________________________________________________
intended for us to enjoy. The embracing of the selfish
“blame the male,” “get out of my way” attitude by the
popular media and an entire generation of women has
directly contributed to the breakup of the traditional family
unit. Instead of teaching the values of courage, forgiveness,
commitment, and honor, the radical feminist movement and
many in the media force-feed America’s young women
destructive attitudes of selfishness and disrespect for men
and each other. In so doing, the movement now bears much
of the responsibility for having driven many males from
their traditional role as caretakers, causing much confusion
about exactly how they should approach and treat females.
A natural regression in male attitudes about courtesy and
responsibilities began when the feminists started attacking
them. What once was seen as a service and a courtesy - the
simple act of a man opening the door for a woman -
became an action man had to carefully consider. Soon, the
question of “Do I open the door?” digressed to “Do I really
have to work hard and offer my wife the opportunity to stay
at home with our children?” which further digressed to “Do
I have an obligation to stick around and help raise the
kids?” And who is suffering most from the destruction of
the family caused by the feminist movement? The young
women of today. 54

In this scathing quote, Hagelin presents an interesting vision of men and

young women as “victims” of radical feminism in particular and second-
wave feminism in general. The image she paints of the movement underlines
what she considers as its lack of “moral values” like “courage, forgiveness,
commitment, and honor” and its selfishness. In her view, by demanding
gender equality and thus denying the “natural” differences between men and
women feminists drove men to forsaking an active role in the family. She
consequently constructs men as victims who “naturally” fled the house when
asked to perform roles that were not gender-appropriate. Like the pro-
marriage wing of the fatherhood movement, she demands that men be given
back a “manly” role in the family to curb its breakup.
The theme of men and particularly fathers being demeaned and
undervalued by today’s society is recurring in conservative discourses and is
interestingly the topic of Meeker’s third book Strong Fathers, Strong
Daughters, 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know (2006). It even evolved in
a worrying trend which through pro-abstinence discourses promotes father-
daughter bonding as the most important link in girl’s lives to the exclusion of
mothers. Such attitudes culminate in the successful “purity balls,” 55 created
130 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
in 1998 by the evangelical Wilson couple, where fathers take their daughters
to a ball where they pledge to protect their purity by being themselves models
of integrity and chastity. The girls also implicitly take a chastity pledge on
this occasion. While the fact that fathers thus appropriate their daughter’s
sexuality can appear problematic and archaic, the incestuous implications of
the ceremony and of the insistence on the father-daughter bond are also
disturbing. These balls, in which mothers do not take part, consist in the
pledge, a dance between father and daughter, but also in many cases in the
gift of a ring to the young woman by her father, making the whole ceremony
evocative of a wedding in which the daughter gives up to her father the
sexual agency she will later give up to her husband. In this case, the attempt
by conservative Christians to reassert the influence of the father through
abstinence discourses as the leader of his family appears to reach potentially
dangerous extremes. This is particularly concerning in view of a recent
complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
against the United States by a group of mothers and their children, accusing
US courts of a failure “to protect the life, liberties, security and other human
rights of abused mothers and their children” by “frequently awarding child
custody to abusers and child molesters.” 56 Paradoxically, while the menace
constituted by of an oversexualised society, pedophiles and child abductors
has been exacerbated by US media, the much more real question of the role
of fathers in child abuse appears to be minimised for the sake of the
preservation of the model of traditional fatherhood.
Another danger of feminism and liberalism presented in detail by the
LaHayes in Raising Sexually Pure Kids is “sex-role confusion,” 57 that is
homosexuality, to which Tim LaHaye devoted a whole book: The Unhappy
Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality in 1978. For the
LaHayes individuals are not “born” homosexuals, on the contrary
“heterosexuality is God’s design; homosexuality an abomination or a
perversion of that design.” 58 In their view homosexuality can be caused by
either the absence or lack of connection with the parent of the same sex as the
child or the dominance of the parent of the opposite sex which can lead to
wrong gender identification, which in both cases amounts to a disruption of
the script of the traditional family. Hence, the LaHayes deduce that the best
way to “protect” a child from homosexuality is to bring him/her up

in a Christian home where the father is the loving head of

the home, where the mother is supportive of the father’s
role, and where both parents have a warm and affectionate
relationships with their sons and daughters. 59
 Claire Greslé-Favier 131
______________________________________________________________
In short, according to the LaHayes, if children are raised in a non-traditional
family they will run the “risk” not only of being sexually active before
marriage but “worse,” of becoming gay.
For the LaHayes, homosexuality is necessarily caused by abnormal
circumstances, either sexual abuse or homosexual influences. It is not
presented as a free choice but a state induced by pressure, the media or the
permissive sexual ideology of public schools. Through their construction of
homosexuality, or “gender confusion,” as abnormal, the LaHayes reinforce
the idea that gender roles are natural and God-given. In their view, upsetting
these can only lead to “negative” consequences like homosexuality, the
breakdown of the traditional family and even child abuse. The LaHaye’s pro-
abstinence discourses are not the only ones to reject homosexuality;
abstinence-only discourses in general by the emphasis they put on pre-
marital chastity systematically exclude homosexual teenagers from their
terms.
In Raising Sexually Pure Kids, the LaHayes’ claim that the
breakdown of the family as well as the delaying of marriage also account for
the aggravation of child sexual abuse, as “the present generation [has] more
single men than any other generation in history.” 60 If men lose interest in a
family in which they are made to feel redundant by the lack of gender
specific tasks that they alone are able to fulfil, then their sexuality, no longer
channeled by matrimony, will inevitably wreak havoc in society.
A feminist perspective would argue that the main beneficiaries of
the reinforcement of gender roles promoted by pro-abstinence discourses are
males. Yet as illustrated by Hagelin, conservative Christians argue that
feminism also harmed women and that they would have much to win from a
reestablishment of gender differences. In particular they would benefit from a
renewed involvement of males in family life as argued by the fatherhood
movement and the Promise Keepers among others. The comforting
dimension of strict gender roles in a postmodern society where certainties are
collapsing and boundaries are blurred should not be underestimated first and
foremost for men, but also for women who might find more reassuring to be
“led” by their husband than living up to the independence ideal promoted by
feminism. A decade ago, sociologist Judith Stacey expressed the same idea
when she wrote: “it is unsurprising […] that so many today indulge fantasies
of ‘escaping’ from freedom and succumb to the alluring certainties of family-
values pieties.” 61 Yet even in view of this, it is important to keep in mind the
potentially damaging effects, especially for young women and gay teens, of
such discourses.
The reinforcement of the “fantasy” or “narrative” of the traditional
family cell is at the heart of pro-abstinence discourses. Similarly to the
interaction between pro-abstinence discourses and discourses on creationism,
discourses on the traditional family and on abstinence reinforce each other in
132 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________
a circular pattern. If the traditional family is required to raise abstinent
children, pro-abstinence discourses are also required to uphold the traditional
family structure. Pro-abstinence discourses contribute to the construction of
marriage as a morally and emotionally “superior” frame for sexual activity
and for the upbringing of children as well as the promotion of traditional
gender roles. It encourages boys and girls to adopt traditional expectations
towards work, career and marriage, which reinforce female financial
dependency and limit the possibility to divorce. One could argue that pro-
abstinence discourses’ major function is not so much to encourage teens to
remain abstinent rather than reinforcing the apparent necessity and
desirability of traditional family structures.

Notes
1
Irvine, 2002, p.66.
2
Radford Ruether, 2001, p.3.
3
Irvine, 2002, p.66.
4
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,
Title V.
5
ibid..
6
White House, 2002, p.19.
7
ibid., p.19.
8
ibid., p.19.
9
Fagan, 2006, and also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families, 2006a.
10
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.6.
11
ibid., p.3.
12
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
13
ibid., p.1.
14
ibid., p.2.
15
ibid., p.6.
16
ibid., p.8.
17
LaHaye, 1998a, p.25.
18
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, pp.8,9.
19
LaHaye, 1998a, p.164.
20
ibid., p. 178.
21
D Elkind, Ties That Stress: The New Family Imbalance, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
22
J J Brumberg, The Body Project: An Intimate History of American
Girlhood, Vintage Books, New York, 1997, p.199.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 133
______________________________________________________________

23
ibid., p.248.
24
Meeker, 2002, p.184, emphasis in the original.
25
Public Agenda, Kids These Days ’99: What Americans Really Think About
the Next Generation, 1999, viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/kids_these_days_99.pdf>, p.3.
26
P Scales, ‘The Public Image of Adolescents,’ Society, May 2001, 38 (4),
pp. 64-75, quoted in S R Stern, ‘Self-Absorbed, Dangerous, and Disengaged:
What Popular Films Tell Us About Teenagers,’ Mass Communication, 2005,
8 (1), pp. 23-38, p.23.
27
Independent Sector, Overview and Executive Summary: Trends Emerging
from the National Survey of Volunteering and Giving Among Teenagers,
2003; B Schneider and D Stevenson, The Ambitious Generation: America’s
Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless, Yale University Press, New Haven,
1999; Shell Oil, ‘Teens Under Pressure, Coping Well,’ The Shell Poll, 1999,
1(4), pp.1-3; U.S. Department of Labor, Issues in Labor Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Summary 02-06, 2002, all quoted in Stern, 2005, p.23.
28
Stern, 2005, p.23.
29
Public Agenda, op. cit., p.5.
30
Hagelin, 2005b, p.224, emphasis in the original.
31
LaHaye, 1998a, p.19.
32
ibid., pp.155-56.
33
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
34
J Falwell, Listen America!, Doubleday, New York, 1980 quoted in S
Rogers Radl, The Invisible Woman: Target of the Religious New Right,
Delacorte Press, New York, 1983, p.6.
35
Hagelin, 2005b, p.161.
36
ibid., p.149.
37
F Furstenberg, ‘The Future of Marriage,’ American Demographics, 1996,
18.
38
S Coontz, Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy or How Love
Conquered Marriage, Viking Penguin, New York, 2005, p.289.
39
Kintz, 1998, p.8.
40
H Hendershot, Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative
Evangelical Culture, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London,
2004, p.88.
41
LaHaye, 1998a, p.124.
42
ibid.,p.171.
43
ibid.,p.161.
44
ibid.,p.80.
45
ibid.,p.65.
134 Abstinence and the Traditional Family Cell
______________________________________________________________

46
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.9.
47
Waxman, 2004, p.18.
48
Meeker, 2002, p.180.
49
ibid., p.178.
50
Gavanas defines the movement as follows: “since the mid-1990s, the U.S.
fatherhood responsibility movement has claimed that fathers have become
marginalized in the family, with catastrophic societal consequences. In
response to this perceived situation, the fatherhood responsibility movement
seeks to reestablish the necessity of men in families, constituting fatherhood
as specifically male in differentiation from the feminizing connotations of
family involvement,” A Gavanas, ‘Domesticating Masculinity and
Masculinizing Domesticity in Contemporary US Fatherhood Politics,’ Social
Politics, 2004b, 11 (2), pp.247-266, p.247.
51
ibid., p.251.
52
A Gavanas, Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity,
Sexuality, Race, and Marriage, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and
Chicago, 2004a, p.251.
53
Waxman, 2004, p.17.
54
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.152-153.
55
For the website of the Wilsons’ “Purity Balls” see:
<http://www.generationsoflight.com/>, last viewed on 4 March 2009.
56
Stop Family Violence, ‘Press Release: Mothers File International
Complaint Against United States,’ 11 May 2007, viewed on 29 May 2007,
<http://stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?page=471>
57
LaHaye, 1998a, p.80.
58
ibid., p.65.
59
ibid., p.109.
60
ibid., pp.193-94.
61
J Stacey, In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the
Postmodern Age, Beacon Press, Boston, 1996, p.9.
 Chapter 9
Abstinence and Parental Rights

Putting the blame for the alleged lack of boundaries and sexual
precociousness of contemporary children on parents and on the collapse of
traditional moral values, while echoing a public opinion that they also
contribute to shape, is part of the conservative Christians’ strategy to reassert
the necessity and desirability of the traditional family as the best possible
frame for children’s education.
This position was reinforced by the Personal Responsibility, Work,
and Family Promotion Act of 2003, which added to the previous act a section
on the “promotion of family formation and healthy marriage.” While due to
economic and social factors, the traditional family might not be the solution
to what most Americans see as the “bad” behaviour of contemporary
children, it is nevertheless the one offered today by American conservatives
in order to reassert a patriarchal vision of society. This reinforcement of the
traditional family requires, for conservative Christians, the re-establishment
of the primacy of the concept of “parental rights” as one of their main
agendas.
The coming section focuses on the utility of this concept in
reinforcing the traditional family cell by limiting state intervention and
reasserting the patriarchal hierarchy within it.
The issue of “parental rights” is particularly strong in the
conservative Christian community and lies at the core of pro-abstinence
discourses and of debates on sexual education in general. As sociologist Sara
Diamond explained in her book Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring
Influence of the Christian Right, the concept of parental rights comes from
“the idea that the government [and secular society] now threate[n] parental
control of children.” 1 Conservative Christians complain that parental rights
are challenged by the public school system, especially in sex education
classes and governmental agencies dealing with child protection. For
example, CWA, Beverly LaHaye’s organization, “supports reform of public
education by returning authority to parents” 2 and many conservative
Christian parents, like Hagelin, chose to bypass the problem by
homeschooling their children.
Sara Diamond underlines that while conservative Christians
advocate more government intervention in limiting the availability of
divorce, 3 in matters concerning children their opposition to government
intervention is adamant. Conservative Christian literature is rich in “horror
stories” of governmental infringement of parental rights of varying nature
like
136 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
condom distribution against parental consent; laws
requiring teacher certification for homeschool parents;
intrusive values clarification tests and surveys; legal
challenges when parents ground minors as a method of
discipline; sexually explicit curricula; health care provided
without parental consent; and prohibition on parents’
viewing of scholastic tests. 4

However, these horror stories have to be mitigated in the American context

since the United States is the only country in the world, together with
Somalia, which refused to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child. The grounds for this refusal are that the convention undermines
parental authority, supports the access of young persons to abortion and
forbids the application of the death penalty to minors. 5
The notion of parental rights is based on the idea that children are
their parents’ “possession”. For conservative Christians, children belong to
and are solely the responsibility of their parents who directly care for their
physical, emotional and spiritual needs and neither the society nor the
government has a right to interfere. This idea is clearly explained by the
LaHayes in Raising Sexually Pure Kids when they state that a child is his/her
parents’ “most treasured possession”, as much their possession as their “car
or boat.” 6 In fact children are parents’ “possession” by proxy “since [their]
children are really the Lord’s children on loan to [them].” 7 A parent’s duty is
therefore to respect the will of God and to help his/her child lead the “purest”
life possible according to the Bible’s teachings. This entails that one critical
right, and duty, of parents is the right to decide which moral values they want
their children to be exposed to. For example, they have a right to ensure that
what their children are taught at school is in agreement with those values.
Hence, Hagelin urges parents to “take a hands-on approach with [their]
child’s education,” that is,

[w]hether your kids go to private or public schools, you

should be intimately acquainted with what, and how, they
are taught. When was the last time you picked up your
child’s English book, or science book, and actually read it?
Do you know what she is being taught in history? Exercise
your right to opt your child out of misguided sex-ed
classes. Challenge the reading lists if the assigned books
are pop garbage. The point is to remember that you, as the
parent, have every right - and the ultimate responsibility -
to make sure your child is taught well, and well taught. 8
 Claire Greslé-Favier 137
______________________________________________________________
The notion that parents have “every right” regarding their children and that
children are their parents’ possession has been strongly objected to by human
rights advocates, as it raises the fear of child abuse and constitutes an
infringement on children’s rights, among those reproductive ones.
As Sara Diamond underlines, parental rights are first and foremost a
question of power:

[The] assertion of parental ownership of children is more

than semantic. It cuts right to the heart of what much of the
family values debate has been about. Who will decide and
who will control what happens to children, what children
and parents can get away with, what spouses can get away
with, what pregnant girls and women can and cannot do,
what homosexuals can and cannot do? These are all
questions of morality wrapped up with questions of power.
These old questions are more pressing today because of
ongoing changes in the nature of family and gender
relations. The old answers ring less and less certain. The
uncertainty fosters fingerpointing and a belief that the
family is simply breaking down. […] No one denies the
recent changes in family composition: the debate is about
what the changes mean. Should the changes be accepted
and considered as factors for future policymaking, or
should the changes be feared and blamed on the
government and secular culture? Christian Right activism
on the full gamut of family matters can best be understood
as an effort to fight change and punish those seen as
responsible for it. 9

The concept of parental rights, similar to creationism, is for conservative

Christians a tool in the defense of a hierarchic vision of the family and
society at large. For them the evolution of the family cell since the 1960s,
along with the promotion of “children’s rights” by the UN and the federal
government, are a threat to what they see as the “God ordained” hierarchy of
the family. For Tim LaHaye, for example, emphasising “children’s rights at
the expense of parental rights” puts parents at risk of raising children who
will “becom[e] part of the anti-values generation that rebels against the laws
of God and society.” 10 For conservative Christians, men are below God,
wives should submit to their husbands and children should honor their father
and mother (Ex. 21:12); outside of this ordered frame, society can only
“break down.” Following this reasoning, institutions that put the child first
and infringe on parental rights go against the hierarchic vision of the family
defined by the Bible and threaten society’s equilibrium. Hence, as Diamond
138 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
underlines “[…] parental rights remain a useful rhetorical device in that it
reinforces a view of secular institutions as illegitimate” 11 and reinforces the
legitimacy of religious institutions. The emphasis of the Bush administration
on the federal subsidization of faith-based organisations as better providers of
help to citizens “in need” performed the same function by shifting
responsibilities and functions from federal state to religious organisations.
While parents have “rights,” it is important to mention the insistence
of conservative Christians on the fact that these rights also imply a number of
parental “duties,” among which are never giving up the task of parenting and
being a good role model to raise Christian children. In Hagelin’s view it is
crucial that parents remain committed to their role and not give up their own
responsibilities to the schools or the government. For being a responsible
parent entails that

I cannot give-up or tire-out in the responsibility to use

every day to coach my children in values and virtues. In so
doing, I will establish them both as productive members of
society and as souls who will answer eternally for the
decisions they make and the love they share. 12

This statement echoes the idea that the fault for the failure of “kids today”
lies with their parents who do not devote enough time and energy to them and
rely too much on the school and the federal systems. For conservative
Christians, only responsible parents can bring up responsible children.
Hagelin illustrates this point interestingly in the following quotation.

If you’re truly going to fight the culture and raise children

who will stand up for what is right, you must teach your
sons and daughters that certain language and images are not
acceptable.
I never - even once - heard my father utter a curse word.
And my kids have never heard my husband utter one.
Guess what? Even though I have three teenagers, I’ve
never heard any of them curse either. The power of
example cannot be overstated. 13

For Hagelin, parents have to set standards through their behaviours, as any
lack of consistency between their principles and their actions would
undermine the moral principles they want they children to acquire. This
requirement applies to every sphere of their lives including matters of sex-
education and marriage. Where, for conservative Christians, inconsistency
can be most destructive for children’s morality because, as Tim LaHaye
forcefully states it, “sexual sins are number one!” 14 Therefore, conservative
 Claire Greslé-Favier 139
______________________________________________________________
Christians urge parents to reclaim authority over their children’s sexual
education.
Since the 1960s, sex-education classes in schools have been at the
heart of the parental-rights debate, and logically so, as they threaten parental
authority and the hierarchy of the traditional family in two fundamental ways.
First, they declare the sexual education provided by parents to be inadequate
and insufficient. Second, as Moran explains, through the “neutral morality”
they originally sought to convey, sex-education teachers, “urged young
people to make their own moral decisions, [and] were implicitly suggesting
that adolescents need not accept their parent’s authority as absolute.” 15 By
thus “replacing” parental as well as religious authority and questioning their
moral standards, sex-education classes both perfectly focus the anxieties of
the conservative Christian community in matter of parental rights and the
family, and provide an effective emotional tool in the questioning of
governmental intervention.
In her book Talk About Sex: The Battles over Sex Education in the
United States, sociologist Janice M. Irvine explains that “initiatives to protect
children from exposure to allegedly corrupting sex talk, whether from sex
education programs or the media, are central to conservative cultural
politics.” 16 By stirring anxieties over the corruption of the young,
conservative Christian discourses have constructed a negative image of
liberal education as pornography threatening children’s innocence. One of the
major discursive tools in this construction has been the use of what Irvine
calls “depravity narratives” that is “tales about sex education that rely on
distortion, innuendo, hyperbole, or outright fabrication,” 17 which I referred to
earlier as “horror stories.” For Irvine those narratives draw

their power from four sources. First, [they] wield enough

specific details to sound accurate […]. Second, like so
many other operations of sexual speech deployed by sex
education critics, they depend on a compelling
condensation of sexual threat, fear, and shame. They
succeed because they appeal to a cultural logic that
someone, somewhere might have done such a thing. Third,
they exist in multiples. Sex education opponents routinely
have a litany of such tales whose effect is synergistic.
Finally, depravity narratives depend on a lack of
information about the practices they describe, in this case
about the truly limited nature of sex education in the United
States. 18

The LaHayes, Meeker and Hagelin all use and contribute to the
proliferation of such depravity narratives. A good illustration of one of them
140 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
is provided in the opening of the sixth chapter of Hagelin’s book “Parent-
directed Education” and is worth quoting at length:

When was the last time you looked at your child’s health
textbook? If it’s been a while, you’d probably be more than
a little shocked by the content of sex education - sometimes
referred to as “Family Life Education.” Long gone are the
days of biology class where kids were taught about their
bodies and the basics of reproduction. Today’s materials
include detailed discussions - complete with graphic
illustrations - of raw sex in many forms.
Think I’m kidding? Some programs are so disingenuous
that their very names are lies. They’re called abstinence-
plus, or abstinence-based, but they’re not about abstinence.
They’re about the mechanics of sexuality. […] Researcher
Robert Rector at The Heritage Foundation tells of a
program that lists ways teachers can show kids as young as
13 “how to make condoms fun and pleasurable.” One of the
ways to do that, it turns out, is to send kids on a “condom
hunt” to local stores. They’re expected to look over the
various types that are offered and ask, “what’s the cheapest
price for three condoms?”
The so-called “fun” doesn’t stop there. Teachers also are
supposed to hold “condom races” between teams of
students. “Each person on the team must put the condom on
a dildo or cucumber and take it off,” the program says.
“The team that finishes first wins.”
Such programs offer extensive instruction in how to
“satisfy each other” short of intercourse: showering
together, full-body massages, etc. Does any rational person
think these activities make it less likely they’ll graduate to
intercourse? 19

This particular depravity narrative is especially convincing as it does,

contrary to others, stick to the truth and relies mostly on the outraged
comments of Hagelin and the lack of context provided for the examples she
quotes. However, Irvine refers to more extreme cases of stories telling that
children in sex-education classes

were being encouraged to fondle each other, sexual

intercourse would be taught in kindergarten, schools would
install coed bathrooms with no partitions between stalls,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 141
______________________________________________________________
and youth were being told about bestiality with donkeys
and sheep. 20

Such “horror stories” contribute to the construction of comprehensive sex-

education as dangerous for children’s “innocence,” “health” and moral values
and are instrumental in convincing parents that they must take back the role
of sex educator. It also reinforces the notion of government as interfering
illegitimately in families’ lives and reasserts the primary authority of parents.
In Hagelin’s words, the government

should focus on teaching our children history, literature,

science, mathematics, etc. Providing kids with information
on sex - beyond a few rudimentary facts that could be
taught in biology class - is our job as parents. 21

Hence, she advises parents to either opt their children out of sex-education
classes, enroll them in a private school or homeschool them.
It is interesting to note that though Hagelin, the LaHayes, Meeker
and most conservatives rage against sex-education classes and the
government’s interference, what the Department of Health and Human
Services recommended on its website 4Parents.gov is more parental
involvement in teaching children about sex and abstinence. As already
mentioned, one of the strategies of conservative Christian rhetoric is to
picture themselves as a persecuted minority, a strategy which as Sara
Diamond explained “is part of a mindset that keeps activists from becoming
complacent.” 22 Yet in this particular case their influence was clearly felt, as
the recommendations of the governmental website copied almost word for
word the advice of faith-based abstinence programs and of the LaHayes, only
in a slightly more secular fashion.
For example, considering the creation of the website 4Parents.gov
its highly controversial content, the assertion of conservative Christians like
the LaHayes, Meeker or Hagelin and the Heritage Foundation that the
government is promoting a vision of sexual education in opposition to their
own moral values might never have been less accurate than under the Bush
administration.
As already discussed in Chapter 1, abstinence curricula answered the
need for conservative Christian parents to control the information children
would receive about sex in schools, in an era when just not talking about sex
did not seem to many to be a viable option anymore. Another important point
defended by all pro-abstinence texts, 4Parents.gov included, is the significant
influence of parents on their children’s sexual decisions. The strong emphasis
they place on this fact is best understood in the light of the following remark
by sociologist Alan Wolfe in his book One Nation, After All:
142 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
A feeling that parents have lost control over their children’s
sexuality is one of the deepest currents in American public
opinion; according to a 1985 poll, only 3 percent of those
surveyed thought that parents had a great deal of control
over the sexual activity of teenagers compared with 46
percent who thought they had very little control. 23

To contradict the impression that parents have no control over their

teenagers’ sexual choices, 4Parents.gov provided the following figures.
When polled about who influenced their sexual decisions most, teenagers
answered: parents 37%, friends 33%, religious leaders 7%, teachers 4%,
media 5%. 24 Hence, the website stated, parents do have a significant
influence on their children’s sexuality and they must use it in order to help
them make the “healthiest choice” that is abstinence. 25
Most pro-abstinence authors acknowledge the difficulties and the
feelings of awkwardness faced by parents in talking about sex with their
children, especially if their own parents did not do so. Yet they all agree that
they “owe it” to their children to get involved in their sexual choices. Though
parents might have been educated in a culture that avoided sex talk in
families and feared that speaking about it with children might lead them to
try it out and thus “corrupt their innocence,” it is now suggested that parents
need to reclaim this educative realm from “immoral” public schools and the
media. Parents, Speak Up!, the booklet offered for download on
4Parents.gov, grounded this necessity in the following remarks:

Research from the largest study ever done on teenagers

found that teens who felt closely connected to their parents
(meaning that they felt warmth, love, and care from their
parents) were much less likely to be involved in risky
behaviors like drugs, alcohol, tobacco use, and violence.
Teens who felt connected to their parents were more likely
to have their first sexual experience later than teens who
were less connected to their parents. 26

This data confirmed the idea of “parental rights” in so far as it reasserted the
parents as the appropriate teachers in the matter of sex education and as the
most meaningful influence in his/her children’s lives, far above public school
teachers among others.
To exercise their parental rights fully and help their children choose
abstinence, the LaHayes, Meeker and Hagelin, as well as Parents, Speak Up!,
provide parents with comprehensive guidelines regarding their children’s
sexual education and choices. In self-help book style, they ensure readers that
“they can do it!” and that their writings are there to help them plan carefully
 Claire Greslé-Favier 143
______________________________________________________________
an appropriate way to do so. Like Benjamin Franklin, who worked all his life
on acquiring the virtues that he considered the most useful by a clearly
defined method of self examination, parents will have to work hard to fulfill
their wish of preserving their children’s virginity until marriage. By
emphasising the idea that having sexually abstinent children is a matter of
hard work and not only chance, or even an illusion, the LaHayes, Meeker,
Hagelin, like the Department of Health and Human Services under the Bush
administrations, inscribe their writings in the American ideal of achievement
through self-control and hard work. Using this cultural narrative thus helps
them build the emotional and ideological appeal of their discourse by
inscribing it into a familiar script.
Both the LaHayes and Meeker are in complete agreement with
“liberal” sexual educators on the idea that it is indispensable to tell children
about sex as early as possible. First of all to protect them from sexual abuse,
and secondly to help them develop an attitude towards sex that is in
agreement with the moral principles of their parents and to control their
access to sexual information. Moreover, as remarked by 4Parents.gov,
putting off talking about it until a child is already a teenager can be “too late”
as “three national surveys report that one out of five teens 14 and younger has
had sex at least once.” 27
For conservative Christians, in a contemporary society where public
schools do not teach “morality” anymore and where the access to sexual
information is extremely easy, parents need to start early teaching their
children about sex to ensure that they are their “authoritative” and primary
source of knowledge on this issue. Consequently, sexual education should
start as soon as possible by answering honestly the first questions that the
young child has about sex. Of course the information given should be
appropriate to the child’s age. As the LaHayes explain,

[d]o not be like many parents who wait until they think
their kids are old enough for “the big sex talk” and then
dump the whole load on them in one session. […] Just
remember to be gently aggressive and occasional. 28

Parents should take the initiative of talking about sex and use the occasion of
their children’s sex-related questions to teach them about it. The LaHayes
explain that parents should answer their children in a “casual” and “healthy”
way, devoid of any guilt so as to present them with “a positive biblical
attitude toward this beautiful subject.” 29 In the LaHayes’ view, parents
should not reveal everything about sex right away, but make the child feel
that the “conversational door” is always open and that s/he is free to ask any
question s/he might have on the subject. This openness should be cultivated
early on as starting too late might make it more difficult. This way when “it’s
144 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
time to talk about tough topics, you and your teen will have built a
relationship that allows those conversations to sink in and have meaning.” 30
To convince their children of the relevance of abstinence, Meeker
and the LaHayes also advise parents to teach their children about “the joys
and dangers of sexual attraction” 31 , that is, about the beauty of the sexual act
and the pleasure of sexual stimulation but also about emotional hurt, STDs
and teen pregnancy. An example that the LaHayes give of the negative
consequences of premarital sex is that a bride or groom might be exposed to
the risk of having either to tell his virgin spouse that he has not kept himself
pure for his wedding night or to lie and feel guilty. This, the LaHayes
conclude, would start “their marriage off on a very unhappy note.” 32
Meeker’s advocacy of abstinence on the other hand is based more on
a medical perspective than the one used by the LaHayes, though the latter
also write about the potential medical consequences of premarital sex. For
Meeker STDs and teen pregnancy are the main issues at stake. She warns
parents that letting children be sexually active before marriage makes them
run the risk of dying from it or dragging heavy physical consequences
through their whole married life. Sterility is one of the examples she uses
most often. She also writes about diseases like genital herpes, which makes
sexual contact difficult. Meeker also emphasises the fact that these diseases
do not only affect the people directly infected by them but can have
consequences for later generations. She refers, for example, to the possibility
of congenital conditions that STD-infected parents pass on to their offspring,
as in the case of the three year old Erin, whose father had contracted herpes
as a teenager and passed it on to his daughter.

Unlike half of all babies born with herpes, [Erin] survived.

But a brain scan taken when she was several weeks old
showed damage to her brain tissue. Today, at age 3, she
suffers from developmental delay. She walked late, talked
late, and has a seizure disorder that requires daily
medication. She’ll be able to go to school, but we don’t
know how the disease affected her cognitive abilities, or
what neurological problems await her in the future. 33

In a less “dramatic” style Parents, Speak Up! succinctly advised parents to

tell their children that if they choose abstinence they

will not have to worry about getting pregnant or getting

someone pregnant. They will not have to worry about
STDs, including HIV/AIDS. [Moreover] experiencing sex
outside of marriage can jeopardize the likelihood of a
happy marriage. 34
 Claire Greslé-Favier 145
______________________________________________________________
The booklet placed a particular emphasis on STDs and on teen pregnancy the
consequence of which were presented as particularly bleak, consistent with
the belief in a “teen pregnancy epidemic” draining the resources of the
welfare state.

Many teen mothers never finish high school. Teen mothers

and their babies are more likely to have health problems.
And families started by teen mothers are more likely to be
poor and end up on welfare. 35

Meeker, Parents, Speak Up!, the LaHayes and the government also
insist on the fact that parents should make it clear that abstinence is not
limited to genital intercourse exclusively but concerns any close physical
contact leading to sexual arousal. In the LaHayes’s view, even “French
kissing” has to be prohibited as “this can be very stimulating and, therefore,
should be saved for marriage.” 36 According to what the LaHayes call “the
law of progression,” 37 physical intimacy always calls for more and anything
more than a light good-night kiss will inevitably lead to sexual intercourse.
Premarital abstinence advocates generally agree that teens need clear-cut
rules to avoid these temptations. Echoing Meeker, Parents, Speak Up!
asserted that

rules protect and encourage. And even though most teens

may not admit it, they like to have rules that are enforced.
Rules give structure to their lives and help them feel cared
for and secure. 38

This is why Parents, Speak Up! provided parents with examples of what they
call “house rules,” or as the LaHayes put it “dating guidelines” to help their
children stay out of situations that might lead them to sexual activity.
Consistently, the LaHaye’s guidelines contain a religious dimension which
was absent from the rules of Parents, Speak Up! These rules, both in their
secular and religious version, provide an excellent frame for reasserting the
notion of parental rights and re-establishing a practical parental control over
their children’s sexual and dating lives.
The LaHayes claim that dating, like any other events in children’s
social lives, needs to be prepared and to follow certain rules. Though the
guidelines they give may seem very strict to many parents, a fact the
LaHayes are aware of, they explain that children need those guidelines for
their protection. The LaHayes acknowledge that enforcing those dating rules
can sometimes be difficult but that it is also indispensable:
146 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
At times, your popularity as a parent will drop to an all
time low if you enforce standards such as [our own], but if
you do not, both you and your teenagers may live to regret
it. Popularity will be meaningless then. 39

The first of those rules is that “dating is for fifteen-year-olds and

over” and sixteen would even be better, they add. They also argue against
too-wide age differences between the dating teenagers, especially in the case
of young girls who in their view are more exposed to this situation. Parents,
Speak Up!, which advised parents to set an age for dating as well, also insists
on this last point. They argue, with the help of statistics, that the larger the
age difference, the greater the likelihood of sexual intercourse. They
strengthen their point by underlining that

In many states, it is illegal for a young teen to have sex

with someone three or more years older, even if the
younger teen “consents” to sex. The older person can be
charged with “sexual assault” or other crimes. 40

Their reason for giving this information, they claimed, was to protect
younger teenagers from sexual abuse; however, in doing so, they also
provided parents with an important tool to control their teens’ dating choices:
the possibility to sue an older partner of their child, even if both were
consenting, and to oppose certain dates on the ground that they would be
illegal and would involve risks for the older partner.
The LaHayes add to this first age requirement that “until high school
graduation, only double dating is permitted” 41 to avoid any opportunity for
the young couple to stay alone. They justify this standard as follow:

There is safety in numbers - not much, but some. The main

reason for this, however, is to force the teenagers to make
plans in advance and to avoid long periods of time when
they can drift into “heavy couple talk.” Under the romance
of the moment, young people can easily make premature
love statements and commitments they do not really mean.
The presence of another Christian couple greatly reduces
this possibility, though it does not eliminate it altogether. 42

The authors recognise that this is probably the most difficult rule to enforce
and that it can be materially difficult to organise. This idea of double dating
well illustrates the fact that the LaHayes consider dating as an exciting part of
teens’ social life, of which they should not be deprived, but which should
also be framed by clear guidelines.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 147
______________________________________________________________
As hinted at in the above quote, the LaHayes believe that Christian
teens should only date other Christians. First to avoid the potentially
“’corrupting’ influence” 43 of non-Christians and secondly to prevent
Christian teens from having to make choices such as choosing between their
boy/girlfriend and their faith.
To decide whether the person the teen wants to go out with is a
proper candidate, the LaHayes suggest that fathers interview their daughters’
date. They explain that it is not necessary in most cases for the mother to
interview her son’s date since the parents of suitable girls would have proven
their daughter’s eligibility by interviewing the boy. They give an example of
how a predating interview could proceed and explain that this presents a
number of advantages, like putting off unworthy candidates and ensuring that
the boy is a Christian. Finally, during this predating interview, the dating
guidelines that the young couple should follow have to be stated clearly and
agreed to by the boy who will not be an acceptable date otherwise. If after all
this the father is convinced that the boy is a suitable date he should tell him
so while reasserting that, if he does not abide by his rules, this permission
will be withdrawn. If the father is not convinced, he should tell the boy that
he needs to discuss the matter with his wife and will call him to let him know
their decision. Through this process the parental right to judge who their
children can socialise with is again strongly reasserted, as their will and
judgment prevails on their children’s; this also extends to the kind of
activities the couple can take part in on a date.
Parents, Speak Up! agreed with the LaHayes that parents have to
know what their children are doing on a date. The LaHayes explain that “all
dating activities must be approved of in advance” 44 and give examples of
acceptable and non-acceptable activities:

[…] approved dating include[s] all church activities and

outings, chaperoned parties, sport events, and special
occasions they wished to request. The don’t-bother-to-ask
list include[s] movies, dances, unchaperoned private
parties, and activities where drinking takes place. 45

As double dating is not a hundred percent safe way to make sure that the
young dating couple will not find themselves alone, it is coupled with a
limitation to group activities with adults in charge and the exclusion of
activities that might encourage sexual arousal like going to the movies, which
can display sexually stimulating content and ensures a degree of privacy by
the darkness of the projection room, as well as dancing or drinking which
weakens the individual’s self control.
Consistently, this rule is followed by the interdiction to “park” their
car in isolated corners warning about the dangers of the intimacy provided by
148 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
“lover’s lane” and to “never go to a home or confined quarter without a
responsible adult in attendance.” 46 As explained earlier, Parents, Speak Up!
and the LaHayes agreed on the fact that children, even when dating or
especially when dating, should never find themselves in unsupervised
situations, as this would almost inevitably lead to too much intimacy.
Parents, Speak Up!, like the LaHayes, also recommended teaching
teenagers “refusal skills” to help them face potential sexual demands from
others. Such skills include: saying “no” clearly, “not ‘maybe’ or ‘later’”; 47
changing the topic of conversation; going away; planning in advance what to
say in such situations; avoiding putting yourself in situations where such
demands might be more likely to be formulated like going to the back seat of
a car or to unsupervised parties. Parents, Speak Up! added that parents
should try to be available “to pick up your teen if he or she calls in an
uncomfortable or threatening environment or situation.” 48
As previously explained, the LaHayes advise parents to plan a
special evening at the restaurant with their child, when (s)he will be
encouraged to make a commitment to virtue and will be presented with a
“virtue ring” or pendant to symbolize this pledge to God. The LaHayes
explain that “your children’s commitment to virtue should be the biggest
event in their life since their conversion to Christ.” 49 For the LaHayes, “this
event will help [children] celebrate their emergence into the adult world of
hormones, drives and passions.” 50 To make this event especially significant
in the child’s life, the LaHayes advise parents to plan it very carefully in
advance. It should also be a time to answer any questions the child might
have about sex, and make sure that he or she has understood all the elements
of the sexual education so far, among which the importance of abstinence
before marriage. The LaHayes explain that this event

is not a welcome into the world of dating. That too could be

the cause of a special night out when your child is fifteen or
sixteen (whatever is your set time for dating). The only
kind of dating they should be doing after the commitment
to virtue is group dating such as church youth activities.
Dating, like getting your driver’s license, should be a set
time, but it should not be confused with the commitment to
virtue that should occur two or three years earlier. Your
children need the time in between to realize the seriousness
and importance of this commitment. 51

The LaHayes understand that this commitment to virtue “may sound

like a lot of fluff to those of us who had no such custom when we were
teens” 52 but they stress its importance. For them, this commitment and its
symbol, a ring or pendant, can be decisive reminders to children to stay pure
 Claire Greslé-Favier 149
______________________________________________________________
in moments of temptation. The commitment to virtue should also include the
future spouse of the child:

[E]ncourage your teen to set as his goal to wear that ring

until his wedding night, when he will give it to his new
mate as a symbol that he has kept himself pure. 53

The child and his/her parent should then pray that God help his/her future
spouse to remain chaste before marriage, too.
Though for the LaHayes, or in the Purity Balls mentioned earlier,
parents play a crucial role in demanding from their children and organising
the chastity pledge, it is to be noted that other pro-abstinence discourses do
not directly involve parents in this event. The pledge can also be taken by the
teenager alone, with their dating partner, or with peers in important
gatherings. This does not mean that they are not influenced by their parents,
or other authority figures, but the involvement of their parents in their choice
might be less direct and directive. The LaHayes’ version, on the contrary,
seems to leave little, if any, possibility of refusal to the child and involves
parents in his/her sexual life and choices to an extent which can appear
disturbing to proponents of a permissive sexual ideology. In particular, the
idea that a girl pledges to preserve her virginity before her parents to make a
gift of it to her future husband evokes traditional notions of women as men’s
sexual properties with no sexual agency of their own. Yet it is fully consistent
with the idea of parental rights and of the child as his/her parent’s possession.
The idea of the chastity pledge, when it is forced on the child, can
legitimately be objected to as an infringement on personal choice and the
vestige of an outmoded vision of parental authority; however it might not be
as irrelevant as it appears to sexual liberals at first sight. It is my contention
that the chastity pledge can also be understood as a valuable ritual for a child
coming of age and participates in the process of identity construction. This
last idea is supported by social researchers Peter S. Bearman and Hannah
Brückner, who define the virginity pledge movement as an “identity”
movement especially in cases where pledges are taken in group gatherings. 54
The chastity pledge can play a significant role in marking the
entrance into the adult world, as practiced in non-western societies at the time
of menarche or of the boys’ coming of age by “community rituals of
initiation or exclusion.” 55 Actually, such a pledge might take on an
empowering dimension. For, as Brumberg explains many

different kinds of social critics now agree that American

girls make the trip from menarche into adulthood without
either knowledgeable guides or appropriate protective gear.
For that reason, we may want to borrow at least one
150 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
operating principle from our Victorian ancestors and
consider the idea that young women deserve to be eased
into womanhood more slowly than is the case today. 56

Brumberg is not a proponent of abstinence and would most likely

disagree with the chastity pledge offered by the LaHayes. Yet in view of this
quote, it may be relevant to consider the possible benefits of the moral frame
that the chastity pledge constitutes. As the LaHayes and Meeker often argue,
abstinence in general and the chastity pledge in particular can make teens feel
in control of their sexual lives, as they are not only led by their urges but
have a clear line set for themselves to follow in this matter. The fact that their
parents take a clear stand in matters of sexuality and do not leave them alone
in their questioning can also feel reassuring at a time when teens usually feel
unsafe. The chastity pledge can also offer a privileged moment for dialogue
between parents and child and provide the mentoring evoked by Brumberg.
Finally, telling teens that they can also legitimately “say no” to sex without
feeling like a “geek” in a society where sex might be too often presented as
the only road to happiness can also help them to figure out what they want
for themselves. But this might only work if they are given the free choice that
the LaHayes and Meeker exclude by promoting abstinence only.
Though the idea of a chastity pledge may seem very demanding on a
teenager, we need to remember that the LaHayes leave a door open for
“repentant” teens who would like to take a pledge of “renewed virginity.”
This door is also left open by Meeker, as well as Parents, Speak Up! and the
CBAE extension of requirements, which also argued that it is never too late
to do well and make “healthy choices.”
As mentioned earlier, “parental rights” also entail “parental duties,”
duties which extend to sexual behaviour as well. Hence, Meeker and the
LaHayes advise parents to send their children a coherent message by clearly
stating their position on premarital sex and by practicing the pro-abstinence
principles they promote. Meeker explains, for example, that for her,
ambivalence is permission. Parents should make clear that they want their
children to remain abstinent; if they leave room for doubt by silence on the
subject or by a display of contradicting attitudes, teens will see it as an
acceptance of premarital sexual activity. For her, parents should also avoid
telling their children that they had sex before marriage, even if this had been
the case. Meeker explains “while you don’t want to hide anything, your
business is private and it just might encourage your teen to make mistakes
that could cost her dearly.” 57 The apparent contradiction and hypocrisy of
this statement underlines the fact that, for Meeker, it would be preferable if
parents would have nothing “to hide.” That is why both she and the LaHayes
maintain that parents should behave in agreement with their pro-abstinence
stance. For Meeker one major problem is that
 Claire Greslé-Favier 151
______________________________________________________________
[t]ime and time again teens tell me that their single mother
or father warns them that they should not be sexually
active, but that same mother or father is living, unmarried,
with a sexual partner - often one of a long line of partners.
What teens in this situation ask me is that since their
mother or father is clearly sexually active, why shouldn’t
they be? In fact, the kids have an excellent point. If a parent
really wants his or her teen to stay away from sex, there are
some serious decisions to make. If a parent stops having
sex in order to provide a good example for their teen,
believe me, that teen will sit up and take notice! 58

Though the trust that Meeker places in this method might seem
excessive for some, coherence does indeed make the pro-abstinence stance
more convincing and fairer. But what makes this statement a particularly
interesting one is how the requirements of abstinence are not here limited to
teens, but are also extended to the sexual life of their parents, in particular
single ones. This is evocative of the Administration for Children and
Families’ extension of abstinence programs to adults up to twenty-nine years
old. 59 To have children who remain abstinent outside of marriage, parents
should be abstinent outside of marriage as well. This example shows that
abstinence not only concerns teens but all non-married persons. Besides, this
quote further stigmatises non-traditional family cells by presenting single and
divorced parents as more concerned about their sexual and emotional life
than about their children’s.
This idea of parents having to stand as models is defended in a
slightly different way by the LaHayes, who put the emphasis on the idea that
parents should send their children signals that they “genuinely” love each
other. For example, they suggest that parents take “mini-honeymoons” away
from their children regularly, “to cultivate their love not just for themselves,
but also for their children.” 60 If children feel that their parents are really in
love and faithful to each other, it will give them a positive vision of marriage
and will keep them away from immorality. On the contrary, the LaHayes
explain,

[i]t is devastating to the moral practices of Christian youth

when their parents are immoral. Many a girl has traded her
virtue more out of revenge for her father’s unfaithfulness to
her mother than as an act of passion. 61

To strike the reader’s mind, the LaHayes give the example of parents who
lost their children as a consequence of their unfaithfulness to their spouse.
“No small price to pay for sin”, 62 they conclude, confirming once again that
152 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________
those who stride out of “God’s path of virtue” will have to pay for it. For the
LaHayes, like for Meeker, to have virtuous children parents need to set a
model of virtue by their own lives.
The model of morality set up by abstinence as a barrier to the
immorality inherited from the 1960s is not only concerned with children’s
but also with adult’s sexual behaviour. Abstinence thus provides rules for
teenagers and adults and demand consistency from parents. To reclaim their
“parental rights”, parents, if they want to be consistent with their beliefs,
have to become completely independent from government’s interference in
raising their children and provide these with a traditional familial frame. This
influence of abstinence discourses over individuals of all ages is further
reinforced by the focus of abstinence discourses on educating children to
fulfill the traditional family model as adults. As argued in this chapter, pro-
abstinence discourses and their support of the traditional family cell as a
superior and autonomous structure operate as tools in reasserting the
illegitimacy of the government and of secular institutions and in reinforcing
the feeling of conservative Christians that they belong to an oppressed
minority. They are also instrumental in re-establishing a hierarchical system
of power with God and the Church at its apex followed respectively by men,
women and children, the government being only peripheral to this structure.
Such a system of family, gender and community interaction and the strict
rules and limited worldview it provides to bind its followers to this hierarchy
can appear and, certainly is, oppressive to a significant extent. Yet, as
observed by Linda Kintz

[c]oncentrating on only the negative effects produced by

such rigidity, and there are many, risks overlooking the
important sense of confidence and security such training
provides for many people. The problem is its exclusivity. 63

To reach a deeper understanding of the identity and mechanisms of

the conservative Christian community it is necessary to take into account the
“comforting” dimension of the choice to sacrifice a certain degree of
autonomy to, as Gramsci formulated it, “sav[e] the self from disaster,” 64 in a
postmodern society where only rigid systems of belief seem to be able to
provide certainties anymore.

Notes
1
Diamond, 1998, p.115.
2
CWA, 2007.
3
Diamond, 1998, p.1.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 153
______________________________________________________________

4
ibid., p.119.
5
M Piekarec, ‘Droits des enfants: le déni américain,’ Le Devoir, 8 May 2002,
viewed on 29 March 2007,
<http://www.ledevoir.com/2002/05/08/376.html#>; HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH,
‘Questions and Answers on the UN Special Session on Children,’ 2006,
viewed on 29 March 2007,
<http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm>
6
LaHaye, 1998a, p.151.
7
ibid., p.138.
8
Hagelin, 2005a.
9
Diamond, 1998, pp.114-115, emphasis in the original.
10
LaHaye and Noebel, 2000, p.52.
11
Diamond, 1998, p.116.
12
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.202-203.
13
ibid., pp.174-175.
14
LaHaye, 1998b, p.64.
15
Moran, 1999, p.192.
16
Irvine, 2002, p.1.
17
ibid., p. 54.
18
ibid., p. 54.
19
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.98-99.
20
Irvine, 2002, p.55.
21
Hagelin, 2005b, p.108.
22
Diamond, 1998, p.5.
23
A Wolfe, One Nation, After All: What Middle-Class Americans Think
About: God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality,
Work, The Right, The Left, and Each Other, Penguin Books, London, 1999,
p.120.
24
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.2.
25
ibid., p.1.
26
ibid., p.2.
27
ibid.p.5.
28
LaHaye, 1998a, p.35.
29
ibid., p.73.
30
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.5.
31
LaHaye, 1998a, p.44.
32
ibid., p.26.
33
Meeker, 2002, p.41.
34
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.6.
35
ibid., p.7.
36
LaHaye, 1998a, p.157.
154 Abstinence and Parental Rights
______________________________________________________________

37
ibid., p.49.
38
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
39
LaHaye, 1998a, p.150.
40
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.5.
41
LaHaye, 1998a, p.154.
42
ibid., p.154.
43
ibid., p.151.
44
ibid., p.154.
45
ibid., p.154.
46
ibid., p.155.
47
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.9.
48
ibid., p.4.
49
LaHaye, 1998a, p.136.
50
ibid., p.136.
51
ibid., p.137.
52
ibid., p.147.
53
ibid., p.140.
54
Bearman and Brückner, 2001.
55
Brumberg, 1997, p.33.
56
ibid., p.200.
57
Meeker, 2002, p.219.
58
ibid., pp.219-220.
59
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, ‘FY 2007 Program Announcement, Section 510
Abstinence Education Program,’ 2006b, viewed on 27 March 2007,
<http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/pdf/ACYF-FYSB-AE-01-06updated.pdf>
60
LaHaye, 1998a, p.33.
61
ibid., p.34.
62
ibid., p.34.
63
Kintz, 1997, p.53.
64
A Gramsci, quoted in Kintz and Lesage, 1998, p.19.
 Chapter 10
Abstinence and Welfare

For the US government under President G.W. Bush and the Heritage
Foundation abstinence was, and still is for the latter, presented not only as a
religious or family issue but first and foremost as a question of social
“welfare” and public health. However, the vision of social services that
abstinence education implies is deeply influenced by a conservative view of
welfare grounded in the cultural “narrative of success.” It is also, like the
narrative of the “culture war,” a recurring theme of pro-abstinence discourses
explored in the next chapter, grounded in the idea that the cause of major
“social problems” like out-of-wedlock pregnancy, STDs, delinquency and
teenage promiscuity in general is the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Considering this cultural phenomenon as the source of all social problems
results in an idealisation of a pre-1960s past when, contrary to today,
promiscuity was supposedly not rampant and where the traditional family and
religious faith were guaranteeing social morality and stability.
This chapter is devoted to showing how sexual-abstinence-only-
before-marriage programmes and discourses are a tool in the promotion of a
conservative vision of welfare society consistent with the American cultural
narrative of success. In the conservative view, the major cause of poverty in
America is not structural but moral. The poor are poor because they lack the
type of moral values promoted by religion. By helping the poor financially,
the welfare system maintains them under a dependency, which erodes their
work-ethic and their morality. For conservatives, sexual-abstinence promotes
morality, marriage and self-control as well as religion. In direct line with
American narratives of achievement through self-improvement and hard
work, they also claim that the self-discipline learnt from being sexually
abstinent brings success in every area of life: in studies and work, health and
marriage.
Contemporary pro-abstinence discourses play an important role in
the promotion of a conservative vision of welfare, which in the past twenty-
five years has shaped approaches to questions of premarital sexuality and
teenage pregnancy in the USA. This vision, promoted by the Heritage
Foundation, the G.W. Bush administration, and before that the Reagan
administration, was well illustrated in a volume entitled Priorities for the
President published by the Heritage Foundation in 2001, in which the think-
tank suggested to the new Republican government a number of guidelines
regarding social services. The vision of poverty, welfare and the family
developed by Heritage researcher Robert Rector - who participated in the
drafting of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 - clearly highlights the role that abstinence can play in promoting
conservative moral values and marriage.
156 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
Rector’s idea of welfare is directly inspired by the “social
Darwinism” of the Gilded Age, which significantly influenced the views of
businessmen like Carnegie or Rockefeller. In accordance with this tradition,
which promotes a “survival of the fittest” ethos, Rector claims that L.B.
Johnson’s “war on poverty”, started in the 1960s, was an utter failure.
According to Rector, there are two philosophies of welfare: a “permissive
philosophy of welfare entitlement” 1 promoted by Johnson and “liberals” after
him, and a “morally constructive philosophy of welfare.” 2 For Rector “there
is little true material poverty in the United States,” but rather what he calls
“behavioral poverty.” 3 In opposition to the liberal vision, which states that
poverty generates destructive behaviours, Rector argues that, in fact, it is the
destructive behaviours of the “underclass” that create poverty. Johnson’s
“war against poverty” was therefore bound to fail as it

sought to prop up material living standards artificially

while ignoring the behaviors that lead to material poverty.
By contrast, the morally constructive philosophy is directly
concerned with the culture of the underclass, which can be
defined by an erosion of the ethos of marriage, work, and
education. Underclass culture also involves deterioration in
the ethos of self-control (as evidenced in drug and alcohol
abuse); a loss of respect for others (as seen in crime,
domestic abuse, child abuse); and a weakening of the ethos
of self-transcendence (or linkage to something larger than
self). Morally constructive welfare seeks to eradicate this
culture of self-destruction and thereby open the doors to
opportunity for millions cut off from mainstream society. 4

For Rector there are few “deserving poor,” but a significant number
of individuals who, through destructive behaviour, maintain themselves in a
state of poverty, out of which they could easily climb if they had better moral
values. He argues that two of the major consequences of the “underclass’”
lack of morals are the growth of illegitimacy and divorce which are
“powerful factors contributing to virtually every other social problem facing
the nation.” 5 In Rector’s opinion, children who due to divorce or illegitimacy
grow up without fathers are deprived of an indispensable “moral” leadership.
Consequently, they will almost inevitably grow up to be single parents or
divorcees themselves, as well as delinquents or drug addicts depending on
welfare for survival. His reasoning reflects the ideas of the fatherhood
movement, which claims that fathers bring a unique and irreplaceable
contribution to the upbringing of their children. Consequently, for Rector
“policies to reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and strengthen marriage
should be at the center of all future welfare policies.” 6
 Claire Greslé-Favier 157
______________________________________________________________
One of Rector’s colleagues, Pat Fagan, whose views were explained
by Hagelin in an online article, made this statement even clearer:

America must create a “Culture of Belonging,” [Fagan]

says. And the formula for that is “work, wedlock and
worship.” According to the social science data, if these
three fundamentals are in place, government social policy
is virtually unnecessary. 7

In this motto, which might sound to some as coming from another age, Fagan
summons the image of righteous and hard-working citizens abiding by the
laws of God and the land. He relates his view of society to an ideal American
past, evoking the Puritans as well as Jeffersonian agrarianism. As will be
seen in the next chapter, such images are part of the conservative idealisation
of a better past to which the American society should strive to return. Thus
members of the “underclass” must be incited to work, marry and be religious
in order to put an end to welfare. Yet Fagan seems to ignore the fact that
contemporary US society is far from full employment and that the “right” to
work is an issue today.
As seen in the previous chapter, for the Heritage Foundation,
marriage is the basis of a “successful society.” The Heritage Foundation
researchers also underline that it contributes significant “benefits” to men,
women and society at large. These include economic benefits. For example
they claim that married men will be encouraged to be more productive to
provide for their families and that marriage guarantees a greater financial
security to women and children. 8 Or, as formulated by Senator Rick
Santorum in a lecture at the Foundation, marriage also provides a “civilising”
influence on men by making them more family-oriented and less prone to
violence and crime. 9
Thus, abstinence easily finds its place in Rector’s recommendations
concerning welfare as it promotes marriage as the only appropriate frame for
sexual activity, “reduce[s] risk behaviors and instill[s] moral character” 10
while being grounded in conservative Christian ideology. For the Heritage
Foundation abstinence is not an end in itself, but a tool in the defense of the
traditional heterosexual family unit. It is with the same idea in mind that the
Bush administration supported the extension of the support of pro-abstinence
education programmes with the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family
Promotion Act of 2003 along with the integration of a new section entitled:
“Promotion of family formation and healthy marriage.” However, as
underlined by sociologist Scott Coltrane,

[n]ew data from the 2000 census confirm what sociologists

have been saying for some time: married couples with
158 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
children make up only about one-fourth of U.S.
households. The so-called traditional family of breadwinner
dad, stay-at-home mom, and two children is even more
rare. 11

If the “traditional” or nuclear family cell is losing ground it does not follow
that marriage itself is endangered. Coltrane points out that “because 9 of 10
Americans are projected to marry - a rate much higher than that of most
nations - one can safely conclude that recent trends in cohabitation and
divorce are not a threat to the institution of marriage.” 12 In his view,

the recent trend toward diversity in family forms is

inevitable, and […] national campaigns to promote
idealized father-headed families will have little influence
on marriage rates or fathering practices. 13

For Coltrane, the “marketing of the ‘marriage’ solution” to solve issues of

welfare does not stem so much from the will to curb poverty rather than from
“white men’s insecurity and their fear that women no longer need them.” 14
By reasserting the traditional family cell and the uniqueness of fatherhood,
conservative think-tanks and the Bush administrations affirm the relevance of
fathers as “males” to the contemporary family.
Marriage promotion and its correlate, abstinence, are also buttressed
by discourses supporting the provision of social services by religious
organisations. Rector, like Fagan, also emphasizes the role of religion in the
moral reform of the “underclass” through the place he gives to faith-based
institutions arguing that they

can perform a unique and indispensable role in combating

the destructive culture of the underclass. Clearly, private
faith-based groups can and regularly do transform the inner
moral character of individuals in positive ways that would
be inconceivable in a government bureaucracy. Faith-based
groups will also be essential to the vital task of rebuilding
marriage in socially devastated communities. 15

In Rector’s view, faith-based organisations are especially well suited to

change poor citizen’s attitude towards marriage. Support of a greater role of
religion in the public arena is one of the Heritage Foundation’s major
missions, in their view “religious practice is a vital private and public good,
and public policy should recognize the important civic contribution of
religious institutions and individual religious practice.” 16
 Claire Greslé-Favier 159
______________________________________________________________
The main function of Rector’s discourse, is to displace the problem
of poverty from a structural level that needs to be dealt with by society in
general and the government in particular to the individual level of private
morality. Theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether provides an insightful
perspective on this matter when she explains that this view can be

traced to a U.S. culture that lacks a critical education on

economic and class structures and conceives of wealth and
poverty primarily in individualistic and moralistic terms, as
a matter of hard work and personal discipline versus
laziness and the wrongful expectations of “getting
something for nothing.” This individualist and moralist
culture renders older generations of middle-class white
Americans blind to the roots of their own success (e.g., the
extent to which it was based on government subsidies such
as the GI Bill, which supported education and housing) and
uncomprehending of the difficult times faced by their own
children, as well as endemic poverty of those seen as
“other” - that is the nonwhite poor. This myopia underlies
the punitive responses to the dilemmas of those nonwhite
poor, who are presumed to be the cause of their own
poverty due to their lack of moral discipline. 17

Abstinence discourses play an important role in the maintenance of this

vision of poverty as they construct sexually active teens and especially
teenage mothers as the group in need of moral education. Such a discursive
construction is especially useful as it is easier, under the guise of child
protection, to morally re-educate teenagers and teenage mothers through
legislation than to overtly legislate the moral “re-education” of non-white
poor adults.
The first federal use of abstinence to buttress this conservative
vision of welfare was the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) of 1981, also
dubbed the “Chastity Act,” which inaugurated government funding of
abstinence programmes. As sociologist J.M. Irvine explains, this act was
passed without debate as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981. 18 It was aimed at making possible the funding of conservative types of
sexual education aimed at the “prevention of adolescent premarital sexual
relations” 19 and teenage pregnancy, a token of acknowledgement to the
Religious Right which had contributed to the election of President Reagan.
An important achievement of the AFLA was to provide funding to
religious organisations providing sexual education. One of the requirements
of the act was that
160 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
services encouraged by the Federal Government should
promote the involvement of parents with their adolescent
children, and should emphasize the provision of support by
other family members, religious and charitable
organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups in
the private sector. 20

This way, the greater involvement of religion in public policy later

recommended by Rector would be fulfilled.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, in order to support teenagers’ access to
contraception and sex information, sexual liberals created the myth of a teen
pregnancy epidemic arguing that to protect young women, and by extension
society, from poverty, the inevitable outcome of teen pregnancy,
contraception and abortion should be made easily accessible. However, this
strategy backfired when conservatives started claiming that it was the
increased availability of contraception and abortion which had caused the
epidemic. As a consequence, the AFLA defended a strictly anti-abortion
stand, denying funding to programmes that provided abortion “or abortion
counseling or referral” and promoted “adoption as an alternative for
adolescent parents.” 21 The act also reasserted the notion of parental rights
and further limited teenagers’ access to contraception and abortion by
requiring parental notification and assent for providing most services to
minors.
In this context, when teen birth rates were actually steadily
decreasing since 1960, 22 discourses on teen pregnancy became inextricably
linked with discourses on the welfare system. Conservatives started
defending the idea that teenage mothers and especially the black “welfare
queens” described by Ronald Reagan, were draining the welfare state of its
funds, calculating that making babies enabled them to live off welfare
benefits without working and thus generating a cycle of poverty and welfare
dependency. As pointed out by educational policy professor Wanda S.
Pillows in her book Unfit Subjects (2004), blaming teenage mothers for
draining a welfare system funded by tax money enabled the government to
make the issue a taxpayer’s concern. Thus it justified a more important state
regulation of teenage sexuality through a restricted access to contraception
and abortion and the promotion of abstinence.
This need for regulation was further reinforced by defining the
teenage family, particularly the unmarried family, as an inappropriate
environment for raising children. The AFLA formulated this negative vision
of teenage pregnancy in the following passage

pregnancy and childbirth among unmarried adolescents,

particularly young adolescents, often results in severe
 Claire Greslé-Favier 161
______________________________________________________________
adverse health, social, and economic consequences
including: a higher percentage of pregnancy and childbirth
complications; a higher incidence of low birth weight
babies; a higher infant mortality and morbidity; a greater
likelihood that an adolescent marriage will end in divorce;
a decreased likelihood of completing schooling; and higher
risks of unemployment and welfare dependency. 23

As seen in the previous chapter, such statements were at the heart of the pro-
marriage and pro-abstinence rhetoric of the G.W. Bush administration, and
are still crucial for the Heritage Foundation and other abstinence proponents.
However, this vision is revealed to be more ideologically motivated than fact-
based. Indeed, W.S. Pillow notes that since the 1980s, research has shown
that the burden of being a single-mother persists whether one is a teenager or
older and that poor single mothers are usually already poor before having a
child. Besides

several researchers question the assumed link between teen

pregnancy and long-term social, educational, and economic
failure of the unwed mother, arguing that the long-term
effects of teen pregnancy are not as dire as previously
assumed and longitudinal studies indicate that a majority of
teen mothers catch up to their peers in educational and
economic attainment by age twenty-five. 24,25

Yet constructing single pregnant teenage girls as irresponsible and

engaged in an unstoppable cycle of failure and welfare dependency was a
useful strategy for conservatives. First, it allowed for the regulation of
teenage sexuality under the guise of teenage pregnancy being the taxpayer’s
problem, since teenage sexual irresponsibility had repercussions on the
spending of the welfare state. Second, it displaced the cause of poverty.
Instead of being structural, poverty could be interpreted as a question of
personal behavior. Third, it polarised racial anxieties by putting the blame for
poverty in the US first and foremost on the black population and on black
women in particular. Such a construction of the black “welfare queen”
abusing taxpayers’ money and living outside the patriarchal structure was
especially effective, on several grounds. With the publication in 1965 of the
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action most widely known as the
“Moynihan Report,” the black family had already been pinpointed as
dysfunctional, given the high birthrates to unmarried black mothers. The idea
of black single mothers as immoral and irresponsible was also reinforced by
age-old stereotypes of black sexuality as uncontrollable. Finally, the higher
162 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
birth rate of racial minorities also reinforced the fear of what Pillow calls a
“browning” of America.
Most importantly, this construction of teenage mothers as welfare
mothers reasserted the need for the traditional family as the best frame for the
rearing of children and as the best remedy against welfare dependency.
Putting the blame for poverty on teen pregnancy and the decline of the
traditional family was a means to criticise changes in the family in the
population at large. As hinted at by Religious Studies professor K. M. Sands,
whereas it was difficult to blame supposedly rational adults for the changes
occurring in the family, like cohabitation or single parenthood, teen
pregnancy offered the opportunity to declare these changes harmful for a part
of the population arguably made less rational by raging hormones. 26 Indeed,
Sands points out that teenage mothers represent a crucial challenge for the
traditional family:

Although criticized for “dependence,” it would be in some

sense more accurate to say that impoverished single
mothers are stigmatized for their independence. Whether
by choice or by circumstance, they are rearing children
outside marriage, evidently (though not always truly)
without the support or supervision of men. 27

This question of the dependence/independence of teenage mothers is

crucial as the AFLA and further legislations, while aiming at making teenage
mothers self-sufficient economically, deprive them of power-making
decisions by, among other things, making financial help conditional on going
back to school or living with their parents. Blaming black teen mothers for
poverty and welfare dependency was strategically efficient, as it implicitly
equated blaming the breakdown of the traditional patriarchal family.
Therefore to solve the problems of poverty and welfare dependency of the
nation, the changes in the family caused by the sexual revolution and
buttressed by the “lower” moral standards of the “underclass” had to be
reversed.
Up to the present day, discourses surrounding teenage pregnancy
and illegitimacy have continued to develop along the same conservative lines
as in the 1980s in spite of scientific investigations arguing that illegitimacy is
not in and of itself the main cause of poverty in the nation and that pro-
marriage policies have small likelihoods of lifting single mothers out of
poverty. This is particularly true as “non-marriage is often a result of poverty
and economic insecurity rather than the other way around” 28 as explained by
historian Stephanie Coontz and economist Nancy Folbre of the Council on
Contemporary Families. Yet these discourses were even reinforced by
President Clinton in the mid-1990s when he repeatedly raised the issue of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 163
______________________________________________________________
teen pregnancy to top priority of the government in his State of the Union
Addresses, and when he launched in 1996 the National Campaign to Reduce
Teen Pregnancy, stating in a radio address that

we have to make it clear that a baby doesn’t give you a

right and won’t give you the money to leave home and drop
out of school. Today we are moving to make responsibility
a way of life, not an option. 29

That same year the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), while providing funds for abstinence-only
education programmes, reinforced this vision of teen mothers as irresponsible
by making it a requirement for them to live with a parent or guardian and to
attend school or job training to be eligible for social help. The objective of
the law was to make teenage mothers financially independent through work
and to prevent them from basing their household budget on welfare money.
However, as convincingly argued by psychologists Wendy M. Limbert and
Heather E. Bullock, such measures fail to acknowledge that

living wage jobs are largely unavailable to poor women,

that child care services are insufficient to meet families’
needs, that many low-income children would benefit more
from a full-time caregiver, and that the non-poor benefit
from poor women’s low-wage work […]. Moreover, these
arguments reinforce belief in meritocracy and
individualism by constructing poverty as an issue of
personal rather than collective responsibility […]. 30

The previous chapter on abstinence and the family already shed light
on the strong opposition of the G.W. Bush administration and of the Heritage
Foundation to unmarried families as being a major root of poverty and a bad
environment for child rearing. The Bush administration’s position on teenage
pregnancy and the means to prevent it was well summed up in its pamphlet
Working Toward Independence (2002).

The sexual revolution that began in the 1960s has left two
major problems in its wake. The first is the historic increase
in non-marital births that have contributed so heavily to the
Nation’s domestic problems including poverty, violence,
and intergenerational welfare dependency. The second is
the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that
now pose a growing hazard to the Nation’s public health.
To address these problems, the goal of Federal policy
164 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
should be to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way
to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs. 31

For the Bush administration, abstinence was the one and only means to
prevent teen pregnancy and STDs, another financial burden on the health care
system. 4Parents.gov reminded its readers that “STDs in young people cost
more than $6.5 billion a year.” Like the Reagan administration, the Bush
administration did not only want to reduce teen pregnancies and STDs but
more generally wanted to reduce teenage sexual activity. It thus promoted a
vision of premarital sex as, to take up J.P. Moran’s image, a “hazard” 32 to
teenagers themselves and to the nation’s economy and social equilibrium.
Like the Reagan administration, the Bush administration was
strongly pro-life. Consequently, it promoted adoption and tried to limit
teenagers’ access to contraceptives and abortion. As explained in Chapter V,
G.W. Bush himself was committed to repealing Roe v. Wade and considered
abortion akin to terrorism. His two administrations supported several anti-
abortion laws among others the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004,
which became Public Law of the Land that same year and the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which ruled that

whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line,

with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and
thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law
requiring parental involvement in a minor’s abortion
decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both. 33

This did not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor
or in case of parental incest. The respect of the parental right was here again
at the core of this law. The Bush administration was also involved in
numerous measures to restrict access to contraception, like reserving the
over-the-counter delivery of emergency contraception (EC) to women over
eighteen. Thus to obtain EC, minors needed to have access to a medical
doctor willing to prescribe it.
Contrary to discourses over teenage pregnancy in the 1980s,
contemporary discourses on abstinence present themselves as racially
“neutral.” This is probably due to the sharp criticism the rhetorical image of
the black “welfare queen” provoked in the past twenty years and, as
mentioned by Ashbee, to the wish of the Bush administration to convey a
more sympathetic image of “compassionate conservatism.” 34 Race is
nowhere mentioned in these writings, but in the texts by the LaHayes,
Meeker and Hagelin, this “neutrality” rather suggests an erasure of racial
 Claire Greslé-Favier 165
______________________________________________________________
differences under the hegemony of whiteness as being the norm than a real
inclusion of diversity. The LaHayes, for example, describe a homogenous
middle-class Christian environment which appears to be only populated by
the smiling Caucasian youths featured on the cover of their book. Meeker’s
discourse evokes a similar middle-class homogeneity in spite of the fact that
the cover of one of her books presents a light-skinned African-American
teenage boy and a dark-haired girl who could almost be Latina. 4Parents.gov
featured the most inclusive type of discourse. Though race was nowhere
mentioned, the pictures featured on the website displayed the greatest
possible racial variety, including Asians, Latinos, African-American and
Caucasian. This racial “neutrality” in the discourse, paired with racial variety
in the images featured, is common to many abstinence websites like those of
the Silver Ring Thing or Great to Wait. Yet in spite of this variety it can be
argued that for a public influenced by the racist welfare discourses of the past
twenty years, racial minorities might still be seen as primarily responsible for
teenage pregnancy rates.
In an article entitled “‘Children Having Children:’ Race, Innocence,
and Sexuality Education,” Jessica Fields uncovers how, without mentioning
race openly but by referring to the contaminating influence of “sexually and
socially deviant” youths, abstinence debates revolve around racialised
assumptions. She underlines that while “‘deviant’ is ostensibly race-neutral;
[…] it is also a category that sexuality educators too often construct as
comprising African-American mothers and poor and low-income people.” 35
Likewise, using her analysis of Senate and Congress hearings on
abstinence education and teen pregnancy in 1996, W.S. Pillow argues that the
image of the “black family” of the 1980s had been replaced by that of
families coming from the “inner city.” 36 In a similar document of 2004, a
“Special Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations of the United States Senate” in Pennsylvania the term “inner
city” does not appear. References are made to a “high risk population” 37 and
two of the students testifying are African-American boys who explain that
abstinence programmes helped them refocus their lives and achieve academic
success when before, they were close to being expelled from their schools
due to discipline problems. 38
This idea that abstinence can be a way for black teens to be
empowered is widespread in pro-abstinence discourses. It is also often
described as a means for African-Americans to reverse the age-old racist
image of blacks as irrepressibly promiscuous. For A.C. Green, former NBA
player and leader of an abstinence program targeted by the Waxman report, if

[o]ur youth are taught, through abstinence-based

curriculum, that they have the power to control themselves
and to change their lives in the process, the result may be
166 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
less promiscuity and increased personal effort to step out of
the cycle. […] For inner city teenagers, a curriculum
empowering students in a society that infers through sex
education and condom distribution that they are powerless
might well be the answer. 39

Green, who is himself African-American and focuses on children from

disadvantaged communities, takes up the term “inner city” teenagers and
evokes the particular echo that abstinence programmes can have in such
communities. For Green, abstinence is a means to step out of a “cycle,” the
nature of which he does not specify, but which in the context of pro-
abstinence discourses evokes ideas like poverty or welfare dependency.
Social personality psychologists April Burns and Maria Elena Torre
investigated the unique impact that pro-abstinence discourses can have on
African-American girls. Through interviews, they discovered that African-
American girls expressed their desire for personal and social success in terms
that relied “heavily on a strong sense of personal responsibility and delayed
gratification (of all desires) as strategies” to achieve these goals. 40 Burns and
Torre explain that “given their lived realities of limited social privilege, these
strategies were experienced as the most available and seemingly viable.” 41
They argue that

[i]nundated by “true life stories of how easy it is to “lose

everything” [...], working-class girls and girls of color are
constantly reminded of the fragility of their success.
Dipping into the waters of sexual desire, they are
repeatedly warned, will only lead them off-track and into
disaster. Abstinence-only programmes exploit these
feelings of anxious achievement by capitalizing on the
danger and extreme consequences of knowing and/or acting
on sexual desire. 42 They purposely create a climate of fear
and anxiety so that youth can recognize the “safety” in
“making the right choice” of disengaging their sexual
desire. 43

In this case while the abstinence programmes themselves might not be openly
marked by notions of race and class, they enable their users to play on the
fact that they take on a different dimension for girls whose social
circumstances create heavier consequences and social stigma in case of out-
of-wedlock pregnancy in particular.
Though featuring apparent racial neutrality pro-abstinence
discourses in connection with discourses on teen pregnancy and welfare, still
 Claire Greslé-Favier 167
______________________________________________________________
contribute to the promotion of racial stereotypes and this even when
formulated by members of the African-Americans community.
The association of the prevention of teen pregnancy, abstinence and
religion made by the AFLA and recommended by Rector was also present in
the Bush administration legislations and discourses. In fact the G.W. Bush
administration created in 2001 the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) aimed at establishing

policies, priorities, and objectives for the Federal

Government’s comprehensive effort to enlist, equip,
enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and
other community organizations to the extent permitted by
law. 44

Through CBAE funding the Bush administration also supported

faith-based pro-abstinence organizations like the Silver Ring Thing, or others
mentioned in the Waxman report, and insisted on the role played by religious
leaders regarding teens’ sexual choices. Indeed, though texts on abstinence
issued by the government featured a rather secular discourse they were not
devoid of references to religion. The 4Parents website, for example,
repeatedly advised parents to encourage faith in teens and to refer them to
religious leaders. This is justified by the website’s claim that “teens who are
actively involved in a religious organization, who study faith, and pray or
worship are less likely to begin early sexual activity.” 45
Like the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the G.W. Bush
administration, similar to the Heritage Foundation, relied on its defense of
abstinence as a means to prevent teen pregnancy, STDs and teen sexuality, to
promote a conservative vision of welfare based on the idea of poverty being a
moral matter.
Abstinence discourses played a crucial role in this promotion, since
one of their major arguments was that abstinence guarantees teenagers a
better professional and emotional future whereas promiscuity inevitably
dooms them to a life of disease, emotional instability and welfare
dependency.
Pro-abstinence discourses, though they present sexual choices in
terms of morality, do not openly construct an image of sexually active
teenagers as immoral but rather present an image of premarital sex as
immoral. In their words, teenagers are pressured into wrong sexual choices
by, among other things, the sexual revolution, lack of parental presence, peer
pressure or “promiscuous media.” For conservative Christians “children” are
therefore not immoral per se, but innocent victims of a “sex-crazed”
society, 46 or as Hagelin bluntly puts it:
168 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
[O]ur children are paying - with their bodies - for the sins
of their parents, who shed their own morals during the
sexual revolution of the seventies and are passing on their
brand of immorality through the media, education, and the
culture in general. 47

The sexual revolution is being held responsible by Hagelin, but also

the LaHayes, Meeker, the Heritage Foundation, as well as by the now defunct
Bush administration, not only for teen pregnancy and STD rates but for many
of the problems facing the American society today. Pro-abstinence discourses
are so centred on this notion of the moral decay of society as being the cause
of teenage promiscuity that when children refuse to acknowledge the fact that
sex might be wrong for them and persist in being sexually active, the cause
must be in their view, that they are in “deep psychological pain [and] use
their risky sexual behaviors to cope with this pain” because generally “their
emotional needs are not being met.” 48 Hence teenagers must be rescued from
the negative influence around them and be told, as 4Parents.gov asserted that
premarital sex is a “poor sexual decision” 49 and that abstinence is the “best
choice emotionally and physically” 50 as it develops values such as “respect,
responsibility, and self-control.” 51
Teenage “promiscuity” is also associated in those discourses with
substance abuse. For example Hagelin quotes a study by the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy which found that

[s]exually experienced children were far more likely than

virgins to engage in other risky behavior. They were six
times more likely to drink at least once a week. They were
three times more likely to smoke and four times more
likely to use marijuana. 52

According to Meeker all these substances contribute to sexual arousal and lift
inhibitions. 53 The Heritage Foundation reinforces this dramatic picture by
asserting that: teenage sex is related to higher rates of depression and suicide
attempts; 67% of sexually active teenagers wish they would have waited to
have sex; the earlier a woman has sex, the greater her risks of becoming
pregnant, having an abortion, catching a STD, having multiple sex partners
and being in an unstable marriage. 54 Many of these views were also
promoted in the extension of CBAE program requirements of 2006.
But if premarital sex is presented by pro-abstinence discourses as
leading to personal failure, abstinence is, on the contrary, defined as the key
to personal, social and professional success. This is made especially clear by
a conference paper entitled “Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic
Achievement,” delivered at the Heritage Foundation by Robert Rector and
 Claire Greslé-Favier 169
______________________________________________________________
Kirk A. Johnson and which, SIECUS argues, provided the base for the
extension of CBAE program requirements. In this paper based on the results
of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Rector and Johnson
state that abstinent teenagers are

less likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide; to

experience STDs; to have children out-of-wedlock; and to
live in poverty and welfare dependence as adults [and]
more likely to have stable and enduring marriages as
adults. 55

Moreover,

teens who abstain from sex during high school years are
substantially less likely to be expelled from school; less
likely to drop out of high school; and more likely to attend
and graduate from college. 56

Which leads them to the conclusion that as better educational achievements

usually lead to higher incomes; abstinent teens can expect to have an income
16 percent higher than non-abstinent teens from similar socio-economic
backgrounds, meaning “an average increase of $370,000 in income over a
lifetime.” 57 But why would this be so? For two reasons, according to Rector
and Johnson, first,

teens who abstain will be subject to less emotional turmoil

and fewer psychological distractions; this will enable them
to better focus on schoolwork. Second, abstinence and
academic achievement are promoted by common
underlying character traits. Teens who abstain are likely to
have greater future orientation, greater impulse control,
greater perseverance, greater resistance to peer pressure,
and more respect for parental and societal values. These
traits are likely to contribute to higher academic
achievement. […] In short, teen virgins are more likely to
possess character traits that lead to success in life.
Moreover, the practice of abstinence is likely to foster
positive character traits that, in turn, will contribute to
academic performance. 58

Read between the lines, this quote depicts by inversion a bleak image of the
“promiscuous” teenager as having little capacity for long-term planning, as
favoring instant gratification and being more easily influenced by peers than
170 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
by meaningful adults, while being averse to societal values and thus possibly
delinquent. This way sexual activity is equated with a host of undesirable
behaviours while premarital abstinence is defined as the proper path to social
integration and success.
The idea that sexually active teenagers are involved in “self-
destructive” behaviours and that they do not respect themselves, their bodies
and others are also recurrent in pro-abstinence discourses. Thus in spite of the
fact that children are described as victims of a society that surrounds them
with bad values, in pro-abstinence discourses the image of the “bad” teenager
still coexists with the image of the “good” teenager, the existence of one
being conditional on the existence of the other. However, as previously
explained, even the “bad” teenager can repent and choose secondary
virginity.
The assertion by SIECUS that this article provided the background
for the CBAE requirements is confirmed by a comparison between the two
texts. Similar to Rector and Johnson, the Department of Health and Human
Services states that

teen sexual activity is associated with decreased school

completion, decreased educational attainment, and
decreased income potential […] teens who are sexually
active are also more likely to engage in other risk behaviors
such as: smoking, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, violence, and
crime. 59
[…] abstinence is beneficial in preparation for successful
marriage and significantly increases the probability of a happy,
healthy marriage. 60
[…] abstinence is a means of developing discipline, self-
awareness, and goal-setting behaviors. 61

The connection of sexual abstinence, and other type of abstinence

for example from alcohol, with personal and professional success and
morality is nothing new and is central to the American narrative of success,
the idea that hard-work, delayed gratification and self-control lead to success
whereas laziness and instant gratification lead to moral laxity and failure.
This was best illustrated by America’s most famous self-made man:
Benjamin Franklin. In his autobiography (1771-1790) Franklin explains how
his early practice of temperance and hard work helped him rise above his
initially poor circumstances and become a prominent public figure. In
particular, Franklin recounts his very methodical attempt to acquire the
thirteen virtues he had defined as essential, among them were temperance,
frugality, moderation, and chastity under which he specified: “rarely use
venery but for health or Offspring; Never to Dullness, Weakness, or the
 Claire Greslé-Favier 171
______________________________________________________________
Injury of your own or another’s Peace or Reputation.” 62 Though he did not
succeed in mastering all these virtues, and came to the conclusion that if he
had mastered them, such a perfect character would have been displeasing to
his friends, he ascribed to this endeavour much of his later success in life and
good public character.
Though Franklin was a deist, his belief in discipline and hard work
was strongly grounded in America’s religious heritage. Protestantism, as it
was and is still practiced in the US, is based on the idea that material success
in earthly life shows whether an individual is chosen by God. The key to
success was the “puritan work ethic” of hard work, continence, and frugality.
Abstaining from action on one’s physical desires and overcoming them
would enable the believer to invest all his energy on achieving material
success. Therefore, as Americanists Michel Rezé and Ralph Bowen explain,

[v]agrancy, gambling, habitual drunkenness, sexual

dalliance and other unproductive uses of God’s precious
gifts of time and physical strength were unceasingly
denounced from the pulpit and rigorously punished by the
magistrate. 63

The 19th-century Male Purity movement mentioned in the first chapter was
part of this heritage when it promoted discipline and chastity as means to
avoid immorality and poverty. Similarly, contemporary abstinence
proponents advocate the idea that abstinence will lead teenagers to success in
both their private and public lives while promiscuity will lead them to
professional, personal and moral failure. The LaHayes, Meeker, Hagelin, like
4Parents.gov, also ensure their audience that if they work hard enough for it
and follow their advice they will succeed in “raising sexually pure kids.” The
narrative of success and the Puritan work-ethic explain how the conservative
vision of welfare advocated by abstinence proponents can be powerful, in
spite of the fact that to work it relies on, as pointed at by Radford Ruether, an
ignorance of “economic and class structures.” 64 As argued by Burns and
Torre, one of the consequences of the emphasis laid by pro-abstinence
discourses on personal responsibility and delayed gratification is that

pregnancy, disease, and the lack of academic success for

youth with the fewest options all become coded in the
public imagination as individual failures rather than as the
social and political abandonment of young people. 65

While for privileged youths the impact of such discourses might be rather
insignificant, since their affluence better enables them to prevent the visible
outcomes of their sexual activity like pregnancy, for working class and
172 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________
minority young people they can be devastating, particularly in their impact on
welfare policy.
Contemporary pro-abstinence discourses are instrumental for the
promotion of a conservative vision of welfare grounded in the traditional
family structure and deeply influenced by cultural and historical visions of
success, work and religious commitment. Abstinence education fits
particularly efficiently in this vision of welfare, as it reinforces many of its
central tenets. Thus, pro-abstinence discourses promote self-control, delayed
gratification and the sublimation of sexual energy towards higher purposes.
They also advocate a return to the traditional heterosexual family cell and
challenge what conservatives see as the cause of its erosion: the sexual
revolution. Moreover, they question some of the sexual revolution’s major
gains, access to abortion and contraception, and seek to increasingly involve
faith-based organisations in children’s reproductive choices and in federal
education programmes.
Through pro-abstinence discourses, conservatives disturbingly
equate sexual promiscuity, immorality and poverty. Thus they stigmatise the
poor in general, especially African-Americans, and poor unmarried women in
particular. This use of abstinence raises the ghost of social Darwinism and of
a vision of welfare where the necessarily immoral poor should be denied
financial support and only provided with moral re-education. Such a vision
supports itself by the stigmatisation of poor single mothers who, they claim,
face poverty as a consequence of their promiscuity while promoting a liberal
economy, which scarcely provides unmarried mothers with means of
achieving self-sufficiency.
Notes
1
Rector, 2001, p.72.
2
ibid., p.73.
3
ibid., p.73.
4
ibid., p.73.
5
ibid., p.81.
6
ibid., p.81.
7
R Hagelin, ‘Creating a Culture of Belonging,’ 1 August 2006, viewed on 15
February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed080106b.cfm>
8
R Santorum, ‘Heritage Lecture: The Necessity of Marriage,’ 20 October
2003, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/HL-804.cfm>
9
ibid..
10
Rector, 2001, p.82.
11
Coltrane, 2001, p.390.
12
ibid., p.406.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 173
______________________________________________________________

13
ibid., p.391.
14
ibid., p.390.
15
Rector, 2001, pp.79-80.
16
HERITAGE FOUNDATION, 2006, p.13.
17
Radford Ruether, 2001, p.192.
18
Irvine, 2002, p.90.
19
Adolescent Family Life Act of 1981, United States Code /Title 42, The
Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A - Public Health and
Service/Subchapter XVIII - Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Project,
97th Congress.
20
ibid..
21
ibid..
22
J P Moran explains that “the birthrate for women age fifteen to nineteen
had actually been declining from its all-time high of 91 per 1,000 in 1960, to
69,7 per 1,000 in 1970 and 55.6 per 1,000 in 1975,” in Moran, 2000, p.200.
The decrease remained constant in the next decade; however what did
increase was the likelihood that these women were giving birth outside of
marriage, a tendency also present in the rest of the population.
23
Adolescent Family Life Act, 1981.
24
Here Pillow refers the reader to the following:
K Luker, Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1996; A Phoenix, ‘The social Construction of
Teenage Motherhood: A Black and White Issue?’ in A Lawson and D L
Rhode (eds), The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public
Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1993; D L Rhode, ‘Adolescent
Pregnancy and Public Policy’ in Lawson and Rhode, 1993.
25
Pillow, 2004, p.116.
26
K M Sands, ‘Public, Pubic, and Private, Religion in Political Discourse’ in
K M Sands (ed), God Forbid: Religion and Sex in American Public Life,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2000, p.78.
27
ibid., p.77.
28
Coontz and Folbre, 2002.
29
Clinton, W. J., ‘The President’s Radio Address, May 4th 1996,’ 1996,
viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52768>
30
W M Limbert and H E Bullock, ‘‘Playing the Fool’: US Welfare Policy
from a Critical Race Perspective,’ Feminism and Psychology, 2005, 15(3),
pp.253-274, p.261.
31
White House, 2002, p.22.
32
Moran, 2000, p.216.
174 Abstinence and Welfare
______________________________________________________________

33
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, H.R. 748, introduced 2005,
109th Congress.
34
Ashbee, 2007, p.63.
35
J Fields, ‘‘Children Having Children:’ Race, Innocence, and Sexuality
Education,’ Social Problems, 2005, 52 (4), pp.549-571, p.561.
36
Pillow, 2004, p.202.
37
U.S. Congress, Senate, Abstinence Education: Special Hearing before a
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States
Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd sess., 16 February 2004, p.22.
38
ibid., p.32-33.
39
ACGreen.com, ‘Abstinence Curriculum,’ 2007, viewed on 15 March 2007,
<http://www.acgreen.com/default.aspx?pageid=3939>
40
A Burns and M E Torre, ‘Shifting Desires: Discourses of Accountability in
Abstinence-only Education in the United States’ in A Harris (ed), All About
the Girl: Culture, Power and Identity, Routledge, New York and London,
2004, p.129.
41
ibid., p.129.
42
D L Tolman, Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
43
Burns and Torre, 2004, pp.130-31.
44
G W Bush, ‘Executive Order: Establishment of White House Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,’ 29 January 2001, viewed on 18
June 2007, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/01/20010129-
2.html>
45
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
46
LaHaye, 1998a, p.10.
47
Hagelin, 2005b, p.33.
48
Meeker, 2002, pp.222-223.
49
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
50
ibid., p.1.
51
ibid., p.2.
52
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.33-34.
53
Meeker, 2002,p.160.
54
R Rector, ‘Abstinence Promotion,’ in HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Issues
2006: The Candidate’s Briefing Book, 2006, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/pdfs/BriefingBook2006.pd
f>, p.100-101.
55
R Rector and K A Johnson, ‘Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic
Achievement,’ 27 October 2005, viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/84576_1.pdf >
56
ibid..
57
ibid..
 Claire Greslé-Favier 175
______________________________________________________________

58
ibid..
59
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.10.
60
ibid., p.8.
61
ibid., p.12.
62
B Franklin, The Autobiography and Other Writings, Penguin Books,
London, 2003, p.83.
63
M Rezé and R Bowen, Key Words in American Life: Understanding the
United States, Armand Colin, Paris,1998, p.95.
64
Radford Ruether, 2001, p.192.
65
Burns and Torre, 2004, p.133.
 Chapter 11
Abstinence and the “Culture War”

The concept, or narrative, of a “culture war” that would be dividing

the United Sates into two starkly opposite groups of conservatives and
“liberals” is familiar to observers of US politics at least since the early 1990s,
when it was popularised by Pat Buchanan at the Republican National
Convention. The purpose of this chapter is to examine how the narrative of
the “culture war” is used by pro-abstinence discourses to promote traditional
family hierarchies and maintain the commitment of conservative activists,
and how the sense of being under siege is reinforced by pro-abstinence
rhetoric. Before going further in my argumentation I will give a short
overview of what is understood by the term “culture war,” look at some of its
historical roots and question the actual existence this phenomenon. Further
on, I will analyse the narrative of the “culture war” within pro-abstinence
discourses through the following questions: By whom and against whom is
the “culture war” supposed to be waged? On which fronts is it taking place?
Why? And what are the weapons that conservative Christians can use to win
this war? Finally, I will ask what is really at stake in this narrative and what
purpose it serves within these discourses.
The widespread use of the “narrative” of the culture war” in US
political discourse is usually dated back to an oft-quoted speech delivered in
1992 by Pat Buchanan at the Republican National Convention, where he
stated that,

[t]here is a religious war going on in our country for the

soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind
of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. 1

Buchanan would have himself borrowed the expression from Culture Wars:
The Struggle to Define America a book by sociologist James Davison Hunter
published in 1991 2 , which described the increasing opposition between an
“orthodox” and a “progressist” America on moral issues like abortion,
women and gay rights, funding of the arts, etc.
Political scientist Morris P. Fiorina, who questions the existence of
such a polarisation, explains that

[m]ost commentators use the culture war metaphor to refer

to a displacement or supercession of the classic economic
conflicts that animated twentieth-century politics in the
advanced democracies by newly emergent moral and
religious ones. 3
178 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
The narrative of the “culture war” is centered on “moral” or “cultural” issues.
For conservative writers it corresponds to the erosion of the “traditional
American values” of self-sufficiency, hard-work, self-control and religious
observance, resulting in a moral decline of the nation. This erosion was, in
their view, caused by the 1960s “counterculture,” especially the feminist and
sexual revolutions. Therefore, they usually point to the 1950s as the ideal era
to which they want to return. However, as pointed out by Jeffrey Weeks, the
changes they oppose were not only the product of the 1960s but the outcome
of a historical process that spanned over several decades. 4 As underlined
previously, the ideal of the 1950s traditional American family has little
historical accuracy.
The narrative of the “culture war” and the denunciation of a decline
of America through the erosion of morality have deep roots in US history.
“Culture war” discourses inscribe themselves in the tradition of what Sacvan
Bercovitch dubbed the “American Jeremiad.” The jeremiad was a form of
speech or sermon that puritans brought with them from Europe and adapted
to the American context. It was then taken on and altered by following
generations into a more secular form of speech up to the present day. 5
English professor Donna M. Campbell explains that the jeremiad

accounts for the misfortunes of an era as a just penalty for

great social and moral evils, but holds out hope for changes
that will bring a happier future. It derives from the Old
Testament prophet Jeremiah, who in the seventh century
B.C. attributed the calamities of Israel to its abandonment
of the covenant with Jehovah and its return to pagan
idolatry, denounced with “lurid and gloomy eloquence” its
religious and moral iniquities, and called on the people to
repent and reform in order that Jehovah might restore them
to his favor and renew the ancient covenant. 6

Likewise, discourses dealing with the narrative of the “culture war” denounce
the moral decay that followed the 1960s and the state of decline of the United
States and offer various solutions to remedy them - teaching creationism, for
example, as seen at the beginning of this chapter, promoting traditional
marriage, opposing abortion and gay rights, etc.
In contrast with the conservative Christian notion of an ideal past of
cultural consensus, it has to be noted that the feeling of crisis entertained by
“culture war” discourses is not recent, but rather is part of a long-lasting
American cultural tradition. It is therefore legitimate to ask if the “culture
war” described by contemporary media as irremediably dividing US citizens
is really more than discursive. For political scientists Alan Wolfe and Morris
Fiorina it is not. In his book One Nation After All: What Middle-Class
 Claire Greslé-Favier 179
______________________________________________________________
Americans Really Think About God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare,
Immigration, Homosexuality, Work, the Right, the Left, and Each Other,
published in 1998 Wolfe explains that by

moving beyond polls and surveys to more ethnographic

attempts to uncover people’s belief, I have found little
support for the notion that middle-class Americans are
engaged in bitter cultural conflict with each other over the
proper way to live. […] Above all moderate in their
outlook on the world, they believe in the importance of
leading a virtuous life but are reluctant to impose values
they understand as virtuous for themselves on others;
strong believers in morality, they do not want to be
considered moralists. 7

In his book Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America, which

focuses mostly on the 2000 and, at the time of writing upcoming, 2004
elections, Fiorina draws similar conclusions, arguing that it is not the
ideological divide within the population which causes a divide in politics, but
the contrary: “the political figures Americans evaluate are more polarized. A
polarized political class makes the citizenry appear polarized, but it is only
that - an appearance.” 8 For Fiorina the “myth” of the “culture war” is fed by
misinterpretation of polls and statistics, deliberate bias by activists and
“selective coverage by an uncritical media more concerned with news value
than with getting the story right” 9 since conflict sells better than consensus.
Using the “culture war” at the heart of pro-abstinence discourses also “sells.”
As will be analysed now, presenting debates over sex-education as
“struggles” in which conservatives have to prevail to protect their children,
their family and their country contributes to the appeal and strategic
relevance of pro-abstinence discourses.
The vision of conservative Christians as a minority waging a
“culture war” against “liberal” forces to rescue traditional American values is
at the core of the LaHaye’s and Hagelin’s pro-abstinence rhetoric and is
important in Meeker’s writings as well. It was also present, although in less
extreme terms, in the discourses of the G.W. Bush administration. This
discursive strategy is best illustrated by most of Tim LaHaye’s books,
including the The Battle for the Mind (1980) and its reviewed version Mind
Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millenium, or through his fiction
writing like the Left Behind series. All these works denounce a “secular
humanist” plot inspired by Satan and led by the American Humanist
Associaton - a secular organization which promotes the advocacy of ethical
behavior independently from notions of retribution and punishment - to
180 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
destroy Christianity, morality and America and promote among others,
atheism, immorality, communism and world government.
Secular humanists are just one of the culprits for the “culture war”
identified by some conservative Christian writers. In the framework of their
pro-abstinence discourses, the major “enemies” identified by the LaHayes,
Meeker and Hagelin are the media and the fashion industry, as well as
SIECUS, liberal sex-educators, and the pharmaceutical or “medical”
industry.
In the tradition of the American jeremiad, the LaHayes, Meeker and
Hagelin blame the 1960s “counterculture” for the moral decline they have to
fight. The LaHayes inscribe themselves in this discursive tradition even more
literally, in their references to the bible and their belief in a “pre-
tribulationist” 10 apocalyptic worldview. For example, they claim that the
STD epidemic, which is the result of the sexual revolution, “begins to
resemble the end-time plagues described in the Book of Revelation.” 11 Pro-
abstinence authors also recurrently point back to a pre-60s era, when their
own childhood took place, as an ideal state to restore. Hagelin provides a
good illustration of this vision when she argues that,

Americans once shared a collective understanding that ours

is a society based on faith in God and His immutable laws
of unconditional love, decency, and the simple but
powerful concept of treating others as we would be treated.
Our schools once taught biblical principles. Our families
gathered regularly in churches and synagogues. Prayer was
a standard part of life - both private and public. Americans
were taught the Ten Commandments and the rich Judeo-
Christian heritage of our country.
But that all changed in the 1960s when there began to be a
steady removal of God and His absolutes from the public
square. As a nation we forgot, as President Lincoln once
said […], “that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom.” Schools were purged of prayer and biblical
values, leaving a vacuum that was soon filled with the
preaching of moral relativism, sexual anarchy and a
trashing of U.S. history. Now, about forty years later, there
is no collective understanding of our Judeo-Christian
heritage and the values that once permeated our halls of
government, our schools and our lives. 12

Through this dramatic depiction of contemporary US society, these authors

warn parents that their task in keeping their children abstinent is harder than
that of any generation before their own. Ignoring the long tradition of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 181
______________________________________________________________
conflicts over sexual norms in American history 13 they present parents with a
struggle of an unequalled scale, which requires a mobilisation never seen
before, and in which defeat implies moral mayhem and countless deaths.
While Meeker reminds her readers that when they were teens in the 1960s a
simple shot could cure most identified STDs, today there might be no cure at
all. 14 As for the LaHayes, they draw an epic picture of the task to be taken on
by parents:

you can raise virtuous children in this permissive society,

but you will have to work harder at it than any generation
before you. Our culture is one of the most sex-crazed this
world has ever known. It is impossible to shield your child
from it, for it is everywhere, from TV programming and
commercials to school curricula to unbelievably early
childhood conversation. Because of society’s overemphasis
on sex, your children will probably show curiosity about it
much earlier than you want them to. 15

All these pro-abstinence authors see themselves as being in the

middle of a “war,” or fight against the “culture,” that they sometimes openly
refer to as “culture war.” The LaHayes use the expression several times in
their books and recurrently denounce the “culture” as Christian families’
enemy. One of Hagelin’s articles is explicitly entitled “The Culture War: A
Five-Point Plan for Parents” 16 and Meeker blames the STD “epidemic” on a
culture in which, she claims, “teens are literally being trained into sexual
activity, indoctrinated into a lifestyle that can kill them.” 17 President Bush
echoed this type of discourses when he explained in his 2004 State of the
Union Address that,

[a]bstinence for young people is the only certain way to

avoid sexually-transmitted diseases. Decisions children
now make can affect their health and character for the rest
of their lives. All of us - parents and schools and
government - must work together to counter the negative
influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to
our children. 18

The “culture” they refer to is one that, in Hagelin’s words, menaces to invade
homes “through the Internet, television, the radio” and books. 19 It is a culture
of “depravity” deprived of the “civilizing” influence of religion and whose
main heralds are Hollywood, MTV and brands like Abercrombie & Fitch. 20
In the view of abstinence proponents, the field in which the “culture” has the
most “negative influence” is sexuality, for “sexual permissiveness has been at
182 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
the core of that culture war.” 21 Particularly, in their view, because sex
“sells” 22 and is consequently at the heart of the business of the entertainment
and fashion industry of which children and teens are a major target.
The major culprits that pro-abstinence writers hold accountable for
what they see as the current state of “oversexualisation” or “promiscuity” of
the nation can be divided into two major groups that they both blame for
attacking children’s “innocence” and “parental rights”: on the one hand the
entertainment industry or “media” and the fashion industry, and on the other
hand SIECUS and sex-educators along with the medical industry.
Be it the LaHayes, Meeker, Hagelin or 4Parents.gov all promote, or
in the case of the latter promoted, the idea that the media, along with the
fashion industry are overly displaying “sexual” materials as a marketing
strategy and have therefore a negative influence on children’s sexual
behaviour or lack thereof. Hagelin and Meeker both report occasions when
they were shocked by the content of advertisements or magazines teens are
exposed to. Hagelin, for example, asks her readers to

think about some of the slogans kids encounter: “Just do

it.” “Why wait?” “Obey your thirst.” “No boundaries.”
“Got the urge?” In other words, be selfish, instantly gratify
yourself, regardless of the consequences. 23

Indeed, taken out of context these slogans might appear overtly sexual.
However, the products they sell are not, per se: sport accessories, high-speed
internet connection, soda, cars or shampoo; 24 which reinforces the idea that
nearly everything is “sexualised” by the “culture” in order to sell. This
feeling is also conveyed by Meeker who shares that

I often feel the media and I are at war. They seduce [teens]
to get sick; I try to keep [them] well. Think I’m
exaggerating? Check out the magazine covers at the
supermarket next time you’re there. Here’s what […] girls
[…] are reading: “10 Dates before Sex? And Other Secrets
of Love that Last and Last”/ “Ultra Orgasm”/“Love
Positions”/“Lust advice.com”/“Five Sex Moves Every
Woman must Know”/“20 Earth-Quaking Moves That Will
Make Him Plead For Mercy and Beg For More” […] You
get the picture. The gorgeous beauties gracing the covers
were sexy, seductive, and staring right at the viewer. None
wore visible wedding rings. One article included pictures of
the different positions couples should try during
intercourse. 25
 Claire Greslé-Favier 183
______________________________________________________________
In Meeker and Hagelin’s view the “media” encourage selfishness, instant
gratification, promiscuity and “immodesty” - as witnessed by Meeker’s sexy
models “staring right at the viewer” - using sex to sell everything.
The Bush administration contributed to this rhetoric with comments
like the following from one of the pamphlets available at 4Parents.gov:

It comes from everywhere… advertising, friends, movies, TV

shows, songs, and books. BUT STOP. . . AND THINK. Will
having sex really make you more popular, more mature, or
more desirable? No. 26

Or the recommendation from the CBAE guidelines that abstinence-only

programs should teach:

[H]ow to avoid settings that involve potential interaction

with pornography (e.g., explicit movies, TV, magazines,
Internet) [and provide] understanding of media influence
on sexual behavior and skills for resisting negative media
influences. 27

For the LaHayes, Meeker and Hagelin the entertainment industry

only sees teens as a lucrative market and does not care about children’s
health. 28 In their pro-abstinence writings, they therefore advise parents to
protect their children from sexual content in the media and to take actions
like boycotting to fight “the negative influence of the culture.” 29 Meeker
even goes as far as demanding a legislative ban on

all sexual content from advertising, movies, and magazines

promoted to teenage and younger audiences. Prime-time
television should not include sexual content. Movies rated
PG-13 30 should not have sexually explicit content, whether
or not they make reference to contraception. 31

They also advise parents to screen and monitor what their children
watch, listen to, read and wear. In her list of “weapons” to fight the “culture
war” and protect children’s “innocence,” Hagelin recommends internet and
DVD filters 32 as well as retailers of “modest” clothing for girls, like “Modest
Apparel USA” 33 or “Modest by Design,” “clothing your father would
approve of.” 34,35 The LaHayes and Meeker, like 4Parents.gov and the CBAE
requirements, provide similar recommendations. 36
Parents are thus encouraged to exercise their parental rights and
reclaim their legitimate status as the most important influence in their
children’s lives that the culture is trying to rob from them. Hagelin assures
184 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
them that they “can win” 37 , and Meeker closes her book by stating that “there
is no question that [their children] will survive the battle. They will if we
enter it with them and help them through the fight.” 38 As for 4Parents.gov, it
attempted to convince parents that contrary to what they might think,
statistics prove that they have the most influence on their children’s sexual
decisions. 39
The fact that an outside source like the media might yield a
considerable influence on their children on such a crucial issue as standards
of sexual morality is necessarily disturbing for conservative parents who are
concerned that their sons and daughters acquire the same values as theirs in
order to uphold their parental authority. The control they advocate over their
children’s access to the media is therefore not only motivated by legitimate
parental care but also provides them with a ground for asserting their control
over their children’s interactions with the world outside the family. By
permanently stating that the media are threatening their child’s morals and
health, they justify a control which, especially in the case of older teens
might be considered problematic in terms of civil rights.
This condemnation of the media also enables them to develop a
discursive strategy around the theme of the protection of children’s
innocence. The theme of children’s sexual “innocence” or “purity” underlies
most pro-abstinence discourses. It is closely related to the question of access
to “the culture” since it is the culture which is deemed to be stealing their
innocence, especially by exposing them to sexual materials inappropriate for
their age. Hagelin develops this theme of innocence further. In her book
Home Invasion she argues that families are menaced by what she calls
“cultural terrorism” which destroys the innocence of their children. 40
This theme of sexual innocence is crucial to the condemnation of the
second culprit designated as a major enemy in the “culture war”: the
“coalition” formed by SIECUS, sex-educators and the medical industry.
SIECUS appears to be one of pro-abstinence writers’ favorite
targets. The LaHayes, Meeker and Hagelin all devote at least a page to
condemn the organisation 41 and retell various “horror stories” concerning it.
Each of them details, more or less comprehensively, the recommendations of
SIECUS to sex-educators in order to shock parents and make them react on
the inappropriateness of sex-education programs in public schools. The
recommendations they are the most incensed by as constituting major threats
to children’s “innocence” are those that underline the positive dimension of
masturbation and homosexuality, and the potential recourse to “outercourse”
(non-genital sex) as disease and pregnancy prevention.
The LaHayes accuse SIECUS of teaching “promiscuity” to obtain
“billions of tax dollars” 42 and, quoting James Dobson of Focus on the
Family, they claim that “bureaucrats, researchers and Planned Parenthood
types” encourage teenage sexual activity because it generates money through
 Claire Greslé-Favier 185
______________________________________________________________
abortion, contraception and medical care. 43 While Meeker does not overtly
blame the lack of opposition to teenage sex on mercenary interests, she goes
as far as arguing that SIECUS is at the heart of a conspiracy

operating behind the scenes of public schools sex

education. […To] maintain sexual freedoms rather than
prevent disease, maximize psychological health, and ensure
healthy sexuality among our teens. 44

It seems ironical that Meeker blames sex-educators for not ensuring

“healthy sexuality among […] teens” when healthy sexuality for her amounts
to no sex at all. Besides, while she underlines the agenda of this conspiracy
she does not underline its aim very clearly. In Meeker’s view, sexual liberals
believe in sexual freedom as a matter of “inalienable personal rights” 45 on
which even younger individuals have to make independent choices, a
position that she opposes. She concludes that

it seems clear that SIECUS places sexual freedom for teens

above their health. As long as the idea of sexual freedom
remains the driving force behind national sex education, the
STD epidemic will continue. 46

For her, as for the LaHayes or Hagelin, “sexual freedom” amounts to a sort of
religious belief from their “liberal” opponents, since they defend it despite
the danger it constitutes and not necessarily with any apparent reason. They
see “sexual liberalism” as being part of the essence of being a “liberal.” An
interesting vision of the “nature” of liberalism is provided by journalist
Thomas Frank who analyses what he sees as conservative’s vision of the
motivation of liberal activists.

Liberals tell the news and interpret the laws and publish the
books and make the movies the way they do not because it
sells ads or it pleases the boss or it’s cheaper that way; they
do it simply because they are liberals, because it helps other
liberals, because it promises to convert the world to
liberalism. 47

Formulating the debate in such absolutes allows abstinence proponents to

present it as a matter of “faith” on both sides that cannot be reconciled in any
way, thus reasserting the feeling that they are indeed in the middle of war
against either other believers or “ruthless” money-makers. The concept of
“sexual freedom” which is at the heart of comprehensive sex-education is, as
seen previously, especially threatening for conservative Christians in the way
186 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
as the LaHayes put it, it does not respect parents’ rights “to be the primary
teacher of this subject” to their children. 48 It is therefore a particularly
efficient catalyst for the outrage necessary to motivate the feeling of being
involved in a “culture war.”
The concept of “children’s innocence” and the “horror stories” that
accompany it are also heavily resorted to in order to muster outrage at sex
education and reinforce the feeling of being under siege. The LaHayes
describe sex-educators as perverted and particularly oppose the fact that
classes are coeducational which in their view “destroys the moral mystique
that naturally exists between the sexes.” 49 The opposition to coeducational
sex education was also conveyed in the extension of the requirements for
CBAE grantees which explained that

[g]raphic images of genitalia for purposes of illustrating the

effects of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are
inappropriate for certain age groups, especially if classes
are not gender separated. 50

Along similar lines, Hagelin recounts the story of a mother who was
“devastated” when she learned that her son was told in fifth grade how girls
attach sanitary pads to their underwear; 51 and the regrets of a father who let
his daughter attend a sex-ed class where she was handed out condoms.
Hagelin concludes that “he knows better now, but [his daughter’s] innocence
has been lost.” 52 Meeker follows the same line of arguments by explaining
that one of her young patients was disgusted by the explicitness of sex-
education in eighth grade, which subsequently hindered her relationships
with boys until college. 53
As exposed previously, parents are consequently strongly
encouraged to take back control of their children’s sexual education, demand
explicit information on the content of the sex-education classes in their
children’s schools, and if necessary opt them out of these classes,
homeschool them or send them to private schools. These solutions are
advocated by pro-abstinence discourses as “weapons” in the “culture war” to
protect children’s innocence.
If the “culture war” has to be waged on the abstinence front in order
to protect children’s innocence and parental rights, it is also fought in order to
save the nation. Like creationists who advocate the belief in the Genesis story
of creation to redeem the United States from the moral decay it is subjected
to, the LaHayes see in the STD epidemic a “penalty for discarding God’s
clear teachings on sexual matters” since the sexual revolution 54 and claim
that whereas in the past the church was “the conscience of the nation” today
“Hollywood and Broadway have more influence on the morals of society.” 55
Meeker sees this epidemic as a threat to “the future of our country”, as it
 Claire Greslé-Favier 187
______________________________________________________________
menaces the health and survival of the coming generations. 56 The Bush
administration echoed these concerns when it wrote, as quoted earlier, that
the “explosion” of STDs caused by the 1960s sexual revolution poses “a
growing hazard to the Nation’s public health” along with the increase in out-
of-wedlock pregnancies that “have contributed so heavily to the Nation’s
domestic problems including poverty, violence, and intergenerational welfare
dependency.” 57
Comparing contemporary sexual debates with those occurring in
early America, Richard Godbeer remarks insightfully that

[t]he fundamental issues driving [the] sexual debate remain

the same, however: competing sexual codes that stress
either exclusive or more inclusive standards for judging
intimate relationships still struggle to coexist; Americans
continue to frame that debate in terms of the correlation
between sexual mores and the character of society as a
whole; and as the great republican experiment continues
into the twenty-first century, the quest for personal freedom
still collides with a hankering after moral community. 58

Similarly to their forefathers, many contemporary Americans, and

particularly conservative Christians, still place the premarital sexual behavior
of youths at the heart of their appraisal of society’s moral standing. In our
western world, youths always represent the future of a nation, the coming
generation. Professor of Education Nancy Lesko explains that at the
beginning of the 20th century

adolescence was reformulated in psychological and

sociological terms as “the promise of individual or
collective regeneration.” During the decade 1895 to 1905
the new adolescent was invented as turbulent, as the “seed
of new wealth for the future,” as the source of progress for
the race. 59

The fact that this “seed” might be endangered by moral “corruption” and
STDs through premarital sexual activity must therefore be a major concern
for the nation. Abstinence and the way it attempts to limit sexual expression
to the boundaries of marriage can consequently only be at the core of the
“culture war”, since as Weeks put it “as sex goes, so goes society.” 60 Teens
are thus constructed by pro-abstinence discourses as the guardians of the
nation’s “morality” since their sexual choices can endanger the nation at
large, its health, its social equilibrium, its morality and its future. Hence, for
188 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
conservative Christians, abstinence constitutes a crucial tool in the
preservation of the nation.
For pro-abstinence writers, inscribing their discourses into the
narrative of the “culture war” and the tradition of the American Jeremiad also
fulfills another function. It contributes to stirring their followers’ anxiety, and
thus maintains their commitment to the cause of abstinence and to the
“culture war.” Bercovitch explains that the function of the American
jeremiad

was to create a climate of anxiety that helped release the

restless “progressivist” energies required for the success of
the venture. [… T]he American Puritan jeremiad […] made
anxiety its end as well as its means. Crisis was the social
norm it sought to inculcate. The very concept of errand,
after all implied a state of unfulfillment. The future, though
divinely assured, was never quite there, and New England’s
Jeremiahs set out to provide the sense of insecurity that
would ensure the outcome. Denouncing or affirming, their
vision fed on the distance between promise and fact. 61

Similarly, abstinence discourses maintain a permanent sense of crisis. The

“culture” will always menace their children’s “innocence” and their parental
prerogative, victory is “never quite there.” To confirm this feeling, pro-
abstinence writers systematically diminish the successes of their cause. Like
Hagelin or the LaHayes, they argue that “inefficient” comprehensive sex-
education is overwhelmingly present in public schools, while abstinence-only
is under funded. For example, Hagelin claims that in 2005

the federal government [spent] about $167 million to teach

kids the abstinence-only approach. […] A noble goal,
indeed. But it’s one that will prove quite an uphill climb for
many parents, especially when you consider the fact that
the federal government spends about 12 times as much on
“comprehensive” sex ed (sometimes dubbed “abstinence-
plus” to fool unsuspecting parents) as it does on abstinence-
only sex ed. 62

They also present the media as mostly “perverted” and

“oversexualised”, in spite of the very rich market of Christian publishing,
radio and TV shows; and the fact that even Hollywood increasingly seeks to
cater to conservative Christian needs with movies like The Chronicles of
Narnia (2005) an adaptation of the books of C.S. Lewis, a favorite author of
the conservative Christian community, or Amazing Grace (2006), the story of
 Claire Greslé-Favier 189
______________________________________________________________
a British preacher and abolitionist, which was strongly recommended by
Hagelin and CWA. The 20th Century Fox company even developed its own
“morally driven, family-friendly” label, which produces and distributes
movies that must have an “overt Christian content or be derived from the
work of a Christian author.” 63 In fact, conservative Christian standards of
propriety increasingly influence the productions of Hollywood as well as
what can be said or not regarding sexuality in the public place.
By fuelling the sense of anxiety and unfulfilment necessary to
maintain the feeling of being under siege, the theme of the “culture war”
strengthens pro-abstinence discourses. Conversely, pro-abstinence discourses
reinforce the belief that “culture war” is happening by centering the debate on
the highly symbolic issue of children’s sexuality.
To conclude, the functions that the integration of the theme of the
“culture war” into pro-abstinence discourses fulfils are threefold. It
contributes to the promotion of parental rights through the need to protect
children’s innocence against a corrupted culture. It also strengthens the
position of abstinence as a central issue of the “culture war” while
conversely, the integration of abstinence into “culture war” discourses fuels
the sense of threat necessary to maintain the feeling of being under siege that
justifies conservative Christians’ involvement in the cultural fight.
Within pro-abstinence discourses, the narrative of the culture war
and the narrative of success as antidote to welfare dependency are both
strengthened and given greater cultural currency. In conservative Christian
discourses, both these narratives revolve around a conservative view of
history based on the idealisation of a pre-“sexual revolution” era when the
“American” values of “work, wedlock and worship” were supposedly better
respected. This use of an idealised past enables abstinence proponents to
condemn the social, cultural and familial changes, many of them inevitable,
which occurred during and after the 1960s, in order to promote a societal
order based on traditional hierarchies. Both these narratives also contribute to
maintaining a sense of threat and decay, which prevents conservative
Christians from, as Sara Diamond put it, becoming “complacent.” 64
The purpose of Chapters 6 to 11 was to underline how pro-
abstinence discourses, while seemingly being focused on a single issue,
enable their producers to convey much wider ideological messages to their
audiences. The strategic interest of the theme of abstinence lies, for
conservative Christian leaders, in the way it coalesces most of their core
agendas like creationism, parental rights or the culture war. Pro-abstinence
discourses also give greater cultural relevance and strength to issues with
which it might have become difficult for them to mobilise their followers.
Additionally, while creationism or the culture war, by themselves, might
appeal only to the most radical fringes of the conservative Christian
190 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________
constituency, abstinence and the anxiety it stirs over the highly sensitive issue
of child sexuality might be more suitable to attract broader audiences.
Unlike creationism or parental rights, abstinence can also be
justified through medical arguments and is thus more easily dissociated from
religious types of discourses, which enables it to attract non-Christians as
well. All the more so since abstinence, when it is coupled with information
on contraception and abortion, is already supported by many American
parents. Hence, if abstinence discourses are formulated in a secular enough
way they have the potential to constitute a bridge between conservative
Christians and other groups and to attract less open opposition than highly
contentious issues like abortion or creationism.
Conversely, abstinence enables politicians to address broad
conservative Christian concerns in an implicit manner with a smaller risk of
alienating more moderate supporters. However, in this regard the pro-
abstinence discourse of the Bush administration, especially in the
administration’s second term, had become so radicalised - for example with
its stricter requirements and the extension of abstinence to people aged up to
twenty-nine years old - that this dimension of abstinence discourses was
drastically undermined.
In consequence, sexual abstinence before marriage and the
discourses it generates should not be dismissed as a question of little political
relevance as they constituted, during the Bush era, a crucial locus for the
interaction between the government and conservative Christian lobbies as
well as a privileged instrument for the extension of traditionally conservative
Christian concerns to a mainstream arena.

Notes
1
P J Buchanan, ‘Republican National Convention Speech,’ 17 August 1992,
viewed on 5 March 2007,<http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html>
2
J D Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, Basic Books,
New York, 1991.
3
M P Fiorina, S J Abrams and J C Pope, Culture War: The Myth of a
Polarized America, Pearson Longman, New York, 2005, p1-2.
4
Weeks, 1986, p.92.
5
S Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad, University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, 1978.
6
D M Campbell, ‘Forms of Puritan Rhetoric: The Jeremiad and the
Conversion Narrative,’ February 21, 2006, viewed on 5 March 2007,
<http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/jeremiad.htm>
7
Wolfe, 1999, p.278.
8
Fiorina et al., 2005, p.5.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 191
______________________________________________________________

9
ibid., p.5.
10
For a definition of this term see Chapter 2.
11
LaHaye, 1998a, p.204.
12
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.7-8.
13
Godbeer, 2002, p.339.
14
Meeker, 2002, p.15.
15
LaHaye, 1998a, pp.9-10.
16
Hagelin, 2005a.
17
Meeker, 2002, p.211.
18
Bush, 2004.
19
Hagelin, 2005b, p.XIII.
20
ibid.
21
LaHaye, 1998a, p.16.
22
ibid., p.16.
23
R Hagelin, ‘Selling Selfishness to Children,’ July 27, 2004b, viewed on 15
February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072704c.cfm>
24
“Just do it” was a slogan for Nike; “Why wait?” for an internet provider;
“Obey your thirst” for Sprite; “No boundaries” for Ford and “Got the urge?”
for Herbal Essence shampoo.
25
Meeker, 2002, pp.120-121.
26
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Teen Chat: A Guide to
Discussing Healthy Relationships, 2005b, viewed on 6 March 2007,
<http://www.4parents.gov/downloads/teenchat.pdf>, p.12.
27
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a.
28
Meeker, 2002, p.69; Hagelin, 2005b; LaHaye, 1998a, p.16.
29
Bush, 2004.
30
PG-13 is a rating category of the Motion Picture Association, which
corresponds to “parents strongly cautioned; some material may be
inappropriate for children under 13.” However, it is important to keep in
mind that American ratings are already considerably stricter on sexual
contents than ratings in European countries.
31
Meeker, 2002, p.140.
32
R Hagelin, ‘Parenting II: We’re All in This Together,’ 3 September 2003,
viewed on 7 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed093103a.cfm>
33
<www.modestapparelusa.com>, last viewed on 10 March 2009.
34
<www.modestbydesign.com>, last viewed on 10 March 2009.
192 Abstinence and the “Culture War”
______________________________________________________________

35
R Hagelin, ‘Fashioning a Response to Immodest Clothing,’ 23 August
2005d, viewed on 7 March 2007,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082305a.cfm>
36
LaHaye, 1998a, p.58; Meeker, 2002, pp.140-142; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
37
Hagelin, 2005b, p.XXI.
38
Meeker, 2002, p.223.
39
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.2.
40
Hagelin, 2005b, p.3.
41
LaHaye, 1998a, p.17 and pp.255-56; Meeker, 2002, pp.26-28; Hagelin,
2005b, pp.107-108.
42
LaHaye, 1998a, p.17.
43
ibid., p.38.
44
Meeker, 2002, p.26.
45
ibid., p.28.
46
ibid., p.28.
47
T Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the
Heart of America, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2004, p.132.
48
LaHaye, 1998a, p.37.
49
ibid., p.37.
50
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2006a, p.5.
51
Hagelin, 2005b, p.107.
52
ibid., p.106.
53
Meeker, 2002, p.212.
54
LaHaye, 1998a, p.207.
55
LaHaye, 1998b, p.15.
56
Meeker, 2002, p.11.
57
White House, 2002, p.22.
58
Godbeer, 2002, p.339.
59
N Lesko, Act Your Age: A Cultural Construction of Adolescence,
Routledge, New York and London, 2001, pp.110-111.
60
Weeks, 1986, p.36.
61
Bercovitch, 1978, p.23, author’s emphasis.
62
R Hagelin, ‘Debunking the Siren Song of ‘Safe Sex,’’ 22 July 2005e,
viewed on 9 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072205a.cfm>
63
Fox Faith, ‘About Fox Faith,’ 2006, viewed on 9 March 2007,
<www.foxfaith.com>
64
Diamond, 1998, p.5.
 Chapter 12
The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses

The previous chapters were devoted to the analysis of the different

conservative narratives at the heart of the pro-abstinence discourses produced
by authors coming from a continuum of religious and political perspectives.
Contrary to the emphasis on similarity displayed there, the coming chapter
will focus on understanding the potential differences between the subtexts
underlying the two major types of pro-abstinence discourses studied here.
In the first part of this book, it was underlined that what can be
described as the “religious” and “political” pro-abstinence discourses are
extremely similar in the narratives they use and the vision of sexuality, the
family and social order that they seek to promote. However, beneath these
apparent similarities lie significant differences in the subtexts implied by
these discourses. This chapter focuses on understanding the implications of
pro-abstinence rhetoric for conservative Christians as well as the Bush
administration. It analyses the function of the blurring of boundaries between
the religious and the political operated through pro-abstinence discourses and
attempts to investigate the “hidden agendas” behind the overt one of the
promotion of abstinence for youths’ sake.

1. Abstinence’s Increased Visibility at the Beginning of the 21st

Century
Federal funding of abstinence education programmes dates back to
the beginning of the 1980s with the AFLA and was significantly strengthened
with the welfare reform of 1996. These programmes were supported by
conservative Christians as part of a backlash throughout the Reagan era
against the feminist and sexual revolutions which had challenged the
traditional patriarchal family and initiated greater sexual freedom.
Since then, they have continued to be developed, but it is only with
the first G.W. Bush administration that they achieved international visibility.
Since the 1980s the opposition to abstinence and abstinence-only education
has been rather weak and unsuccessful. In spite of efforts since the mid-1990s
from SIECUS, the ACLU, the National Coalition Against Censorship, or
congressmen/women like Representative Henry Waxman, as well the
American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and
the American Academy of Pediatrics, government funding of abstinence
programmes kept increasing. However, changes began to occur at the end of
the Bush presidency. The Democratic majority in Congress started
demanding more accountability regarding the funding of abstinence-only
programmes, and mitigated to frankly negative evaluations of abstinence
programmes were published. A growing number of states began
reconsidering their support to abstinence-only programmes, as reports of
194 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
inefficiency and scientific flaws were flowing in and as the Department of
Health and Human Services was narrowing its requirements for funding
through the CBAE extension of 2006.
Judith Levine accounts for the (to that point feeble) opposition of
sexual liberals in the following terms. In the past two decades, she argues

large, well-funded national conservative organizations with

a loyal infantry of volunteers marched through school
district after school district, firing at teachers and
programmes that informed students about their bodies and
their sexual feelings, about contraception and abortion.
These attacks met with only spotty resistance. Sex ed was a
political backwater to begin with; hardly anyone paid
attention to it. Unlike its opponents, sex ed’s champions
had a couple of national organizations but no national
movement, no coherent cultural-political agenda. As the
sociologist Janice Irvine points out, neither feminists nor
the political Left rallied to the cause; gays and lesbians
joined the fray only in the 1990s, when attacks began to
focus more directly and hostilely on them. […] At the grass
roots, the visible forces against sex ed were usually
minuscule, often one or two ferocious parents and their
pastor. But local defenses were feebler, and the already
puny garrisons of comprehensive sexuality education began
to fall. 1

Even if, at first, the AFLA met with some opposition, a majority of
states finally accepted funding under its requirements, just as, a little more
than a decade later, they would accept the abstinence education section of the
welfare reform. Even the prominent sex education organization SIECUS,
though it opposed abstinence-only, chose to promote “abstinence-plus,” thus
supporting abstinence as the healthiest and most desirable choice for
teenagers. Levine explains that sex-education advocates were tired, “they
were worn down and in some cases financially broken by a decade of furious
battering from the organized Christian Right.” 2 Sex-education teachers were
placed under increasing supervision, exposed to legal suits and dismissal
from their jobs. All in all, it seemed more pragmatic to accept teaching
abstinence-plus rather than not teaching at all. Levine also suggests that
another factor might have influenced this change; by the mid-1990s, sexual
liberals had become parents themselves and feared the threat of AIDS for
their own children. The idea that the sexual freedom and “carelessness” they
had enjoyed in the 1970s could be lethal in the era of AIDS pushed many to
see the return to stricter sexual norms in a positive light.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 195
______________________________________________________________
What can account for the relative lack of visibility of abstinence
programmes before the Bush presidency? First of all, abstinence programmes
as defined by the AFLA were not strictly abstinence-only programmes and as
such did not alter significantly the content of sex-education in schools. It is
only with the 1996 welfare reform that federally funded abstinence
programmes were required to teach abstinence-only thus becoming more of a
challenge to comprehensive sexual education. As just mentioned, they met
with little opposition and did not generate a national debate at that time.
Abstinence seems to have attracted wider international media
attention with G.W. Bush’s accession to office and his open support to
abstinence education. The 2000 elections and the evangelical faith of the new
president motivated many broadcasters abroad to present TV shows on
evangelicals and on the most spectacular aspects of conservative Christianity,
namely creationism and abstinence. This pattern was progressively
strengthened with the strongly religious rhetoric of the Bush administration
after 9/11. The model of a “blue” and “red” America promoted by the US
media and reinforced by the 2004 elections increased the impression in
Europe that indeed half the American population 3 identified as conservative
Christians and that this constituency had a great amount of power, especially
with one of them at the head of the nation.
The authenticity of G.W. Bush’s commitment to his evangelical
beliefs is not relevant here, since there are no means to evaluate it with
certitude. What is of interest, though, is that throughout his presidency, and
before as Texas governor, he was very much involved in the promotion of
abstinence education programmes. He mentioned these in numerous speeches
and in two of his State of the Union Addresses. In the two decades of
abstinence programmes that preceded his election, no president had ever
mentioned this issue on such an important occasion. G.W. Bush, on the
contrary, by giving it such high visibility, attracted media attention abroad on
the issue. It is significant that while he only made a small reference to it in
2006, he devoted a whole paragraph to the topic on January 20, 2004, at the
beginning of the Republican primaries deciding which Republican candidate
would run for office in 2004.

To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront

the dangers young people face - even when they’re difficult
to talk about. Each year, about 3 million teenagers contract
sexually-transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill
them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my
budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform
families about these medical risks. We will double federal
funding for abstinence programmes, so schools can teach
196 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only
certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases. 4

That on this occasion the President attempted to mobilise the

conservative Christian constituency in and outside of the Republican Party by
mentioning one of their warhorses is clear. However, this explanation does
not account for the full extent of the Bush administration’s commitment to
abstinence during his two terms in office. Although he did present a
conservative position on teenage pregnancy around 1995 and 1996, when the
Republican Party won a majority in Congress, Bill Clinton barely mentioned
abstinence in his speeches and when he did, it was never in moral terms. 5
One can argue that due to his Democratic affiliation and his public persona,
using the issue of abstinence was not a relevant strategy. On the contrary
G.W. Bush built his public image around his new-born Christianity, his
opposition to abortion, his condemnation of stem cell research and his
promotion of abstinence. The very strong public religiosity of the President
was noted by many commentators as exceeding that of his predecessors.
Theologian Michael S. Northcott, for instance, noted that President Bush, by
inviting the son of Billy Graham to give a blessing and prayer at his inaugural
ceremony, “went beyond the usual civil religion of such occasions.” 6 Jeffrey
Siker, another theologian, commented on the self-identification of G.W. Bush
with Moses, arguing that

[w]e have had other “religious” presidents, from the

Sunday school teaching Jimmy Carter, to Ronald Reagan’s
famous courting of the religious right, to Bill Clinton’s
Baptist roots. But no other President has so clearly
perceived his calling in such epic biblical terms. 7

He also remarked the particular fluidity between church and state

encouraged by Bush in his support to faith-based initiatives among others.
Newsweek political journalist Howard Fineman also argued forcefully on
these points in an article entitled “Bush and God” in 2003,

[e]very president invokes God and asks his blessing. Every

president promises, though not always in so many words, to
lead according to moral principles rooted in Biblical
tradition. […] But it has taken a war, and the prospect of
more, to highlight a central fact: this president - this
presidency - is the most resolutely “faith-based” in modern
times, an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust
in the temporal and spiritual power of God. 8
 Claire Greslé-Favier 197
______________________________________________________________
Some argued that, similar to Reagan, Bush was only paying lip
service to these issues, as he did not manage to fulfill conservative
Christians’ wish for outlawing abortion or making same-sex marriage
unconstitutional, for instance. However, even if his administration had little
effect on these issues, it undoubtedly contributed by giving such topics an
increasing space in political discourses.

2. Blurring Boundaries Between Political and Religious Discourses

In spite of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the US
constitution, political discourse in the US is far from secular. The “In God
We Trust” on dollar bills and the “God Bless America” of politicians can be
seen in many cases as rhetorical traditions rather than true signs of religious
commitment. However, such formulas, together with the high level of
religiosity of the American population, open the door for the inclusion of
more religious elements in political discourse. Indeed, surveys show that
atheism is not widely accepted in the US. In a 2006 Newsweek poll,
Americans said they believed in God

by a margin of 92 to 6 - only 2 percent answered “don’t

know” - and only 37 percent said they’d be willing to vote
for an atheist for president. (That’s down from 49 percent
in a 1999 Gallup poll - which also found that more
Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.) 9

In this, US Americans still follow the idea formulated by John Locke in 1689
that “promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society,
can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even
in thought, dissolves all.” 10 In a context where lack of religion is still
considered by many as a lack of “morals,” being religious cannot constitute a
handicap for a US president and displaying a belief in God appears to be a
necessity.
Through his support of issues usually associated with the Religious
Right, G.W. Bush contributed to an increasing “blurring” of the boundaries
between religious and political discourses. As shown in the previous
chapters, the discourse of the Bush administration in the matter of abstinence
education was directly inspired by conservative Christian rhetoric. The
government offered similar arguments and similar educational strategies,
albeit in an apparently more secular tone. But in spite of these similarities,
did the discourses of the government and these religious discourses imply
similar subtexts? Did they include the same meanings under terms like the
“family,” “sexuality,” “body,” “gender,” “abstinence,” etc.? Did their
discourses on abstinence attempt to reach the same goals? How did these two
198 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
types of discourses interact with each other, influence each other? Did they
involve the same actors? This is what this chapter seeks to investigate.
It is possible to gather under the category of religious pro-abstinence
discourses texts by the LaHayes, Meeker and Hagelin. These different
authors, while coming from different backgrounds, openly identify
themselves as conservative and Christian and share central views of society,
the family and the role of the government. However, it is clear that both the
LaHayes and Hagelin are also deeply committed to political activism and
therefore merge religious and political discourses. This is also the case of the
Heritage Foundation which, while being a political organisation, supports
issues that are central to the Religious Right like anti-abortion and anti-gay
marriage legislations, abstinence programmes and “pro-family” initiatives as
well as the idea of the indispensable nature of religion as a social and moral
frame.
In the case of the LaHayes, the religious discourse is clearly
dominant. They defend abstinence because they see premarital sex as being
“wrong” in God’s eyes. Hagelin argues in a similar way that it “is just plain
wrong.” 11 As for Meeker, while her major argument is a medical one, her
rhetoric and personal background clearly approaches that of Hagelin and the
LaHayes.
The Heritage Foundation presents a more complex picture. Its
members defend abstinence on the base of apparently scientific data.
However, their research based on the analysis of surveys from different
origins has often been qualified as unscientific, is not peer reviewed and is
often contradicted by other studies. While they claim for example that
abstinence education significantly delays the initiation of sexual activity, this
is not backed by any scientific study. Their reasons for promoting abstinence
therefore must be other than reaching this goal as shown by the more
personal columns of Hagelin.
Likewise the Bush administration kept promoting abstinence-only in
spite of its mitigated results and the potentially negative consequences of the
messages such programmes promote with regard to gender, family structures,
sexual identity and sexuality as well, as in the face of the opposition of key
players in the medical community, like the American Medical Association,
the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of
Pediatrics.
The main difference between the discourses of the LaHayes and
Hagelin on the one hand and the Heritage Foundation and the Bush
administration on the other is that the latter two, in their defense of
abstinence, put forward an apparently scientific rationale, thus offering a
more secular view. Yet, the way they presented and still present, in the case
of the Heritage Foundation, abstinence vs. premarital sex is so coded in
 Claire Greslé-Favier 199
______________________________________________________________
“moral” terms that the boundaries between their discourses and the personal
columns of Hagelin or the LaHayes’ writings appear unclear.
The choice of the Heritage Foundation and even of Hagelin and the
LaHayes to “politicise” their discourse through “secularisation” and the
recourse to a “scientific” argument is not surprising, as it helps them to
promote this issue beyond their own conservative Christian constituency and
achieve a higher degree of recognition on the public level. However, what
were the gains for the Bush administration in making its discourse on
abstinence sound more “religious?”

3. What Functions Do Pro-abstinence Discourses Play for

Conservative Christians?
The previous chapters shed light on the processes through which
pro-abstinence discourses help conservative Christians reassert some of the
main tenets of their religious and cultural beliefs - creationism, parental
rights, the belief in a culture war, etc. The open intent of conservative
Christians in promoting a religious discourse on abstinence is to “turn back
the clock” to a mythical pre-sexual revolution era when the traditional
biblical family and “American values” were respected and when America
was living according to Christian codes of morality.
Yet as an oppositional social movement, success in reviving this
mythical era would mean for conservative Christians the end of their
activism, which would no longer be needed. Therefore, conservative
Christian leaders have to maintain their constituency in a permanent state of
crisis. As underlined by Sara Diamond

people within the Christian Right view themselves as

outsiders even as they wield political strength
disproportionate to their number. The perception among
evangelicals that they are underdogs, ignored if not abused
by the establishment, is part of a mindset that keeps
activists from becoming complacent. 12

By systematically renewing in their followers the sense that they are in the
middle of a culture war for the “hearts and minds” of Americans,
conservative Christian leaders strengthen their followers commitment and
their own influence over them.
Consequently, getting involved in moral battles that they have little
chance of winning reasserts this sense of crisis. This appears clearly in the
case of abstinence, which seems to assume a more discursive than practical
function, since its lack of efficiency has been scientifically proven. Besides,
the apparent impossibility of such a task as curbing teen sexual activity
200 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
brings to mind the following comment on masturbation by Michel Foucault
in his History of Sexuality:

[T]he extraordinary effort that went into the task that was
bound to fail leads one to suspect that what was demanded
of it was to persevere, to proliferate to the limits of the
visible and the invisible rather than disappear for good. 13

Conservative Christians do not want premarital sex to disappear but to

proliferate, thus providing them with an inextinguishable ground for social
commitment.
The notion of crisis entertained by conservative Christian leaders fits
conveniently with the pre-tribulation dispensational premillenialism of most
evangelicals: the belief that before the second coming of Christ, Christians
will be raptured and non-believers left to live through a period of
“tribulation” ruled by the anti-Christ and culminating in the Armageddon, the
fight between good and evil. This belief is strongly tainted by a pessimistic
approach to the present, as the second coming of Christ is announced by a
period of cultural and moral decline which believers always feel they are in
the middle of.
The maintenance of this state of crisis is especially crucial at a point
in the 20th and 21st first centuries, when conservative Christians never
enjoyed so much cultural power. In the past decades, their influence has been
felt in American culture to an extent that can hardly be justified by their
number. Indeed, helped by a judicial system, which creates a proliferation of
legal suits, conservative Christians even appear superfluous to the
maintenance of the moral order they want to prevail. This is especially true
concerning issues regarding children, where conservative Christian concerns
coincide with the pedophilia panic of the past two decades. The media thus
propagate stories of oral sex epidemics and of ever-younger children
becoming sexually active, while schools are more and more in tune with
conservative sensitivities to avoid lawsuits. An example of this can be found
in case of the “freak dancing” phenomenon. In October 2006, the Los
Angeles Times reported on a movement started by school principals and
parents to stop a “sexually explicit” type of dancing, inspired by hip-hop and
MTV music videos, taking place at school dances across the nation. The
principal of a California school, who subsequently cancelled school dances,
described freak dancing as being “one step from events that should be
occurring on wedding nights.” 14 The LA Times provides the reader with the
following description of a video featuring freak dancing:

A teenage boy dances behind his winter-formal date, hands

on her hips, thrusting his pelvis against her while she
 Claire Greslé-Favier 201
______________________________________________________________
hitches up her satiny gown and bends at the waist. Another
couple dance facing each other, their bodies enmeshed and
their hips gyrating in a frenzy. A boy approaches a third
couple, nearly sandwiching the girl between himself and
her partner. 15

The article does not mention the involvement of conservative Christian

organizations in this cancellation of school dances. In one of the cases
mentioned it was caused by the call of a mother to the police after her
daughter felt harassed by the dancing of her partner at a back-to-school party.
However, this example is representative of the way conservative Christian
views on sexuality have come to pervade US culture.
The influence of conservative Christian “moral” concerns is also felt
in the movie industry. In a similar pattern, the studio and director of the
screen adaptation of the British child bestseller trilogy His Dark Materials by
Philip Pullman decided to cut out the book’s references to the Church and
God due to

fears of a backlash from the Christian Right in the United

States. […] [The director] said that the studio, Nine Line
Cinema, had expressed concern that His Dark Materials’
perceived anti-religiosity might make “it an inviable project
financially.” 16

In this case, the “fear” of a Christian Right, which in any case is unlikely to
be very attracted by the screen version of this strongly “left” leaning and
“liberal” book, is enough to prompt self-censorship from the studio. In such
cases it appears that conservative Christian organisations, victims of their
own success, might indeed have become almost superfluous in the fight to
preserve a “family” and “religion-friendly” environment. Hence, the sense of
“threat,” of being a minority under “siege,” needs to be reasserted in ever
stronger terms in times of “success.”
For conservative Christians, the “subtext” or “hidden agenda” of
pro-abstinence discourses is to contribute to the reinforcement of this
permanent state of crisis in order to mobilise their constituency and justify
their struggle. They also repeat and reassert over and over again the meanings
they invest in crucial terms like “family,” “body,” “sexuality” or
“abstinence.” That is the “superiority” of the traditional family cell which is
the only legitimate place where sexuality can be expressed and the idea that
the body is a “member of Christ himself.” 17
202 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
4. What Functions Did Pro-abstinence Discourses Play for the
Bush Administration?
The argument most often cited by the media at home and abroad for
the vocal support of the Bush administration to abstinence-only was the
appeal to conservative Christian voters. 18 However, this constituency, though
yielding disproportionate political power, is not extremely numerous and the
support for abstinence-only if it can gain conservative Christian electors to
Republican candidates might also alienate others. 19 Indeed, polls show that
parents overwhelmingly support teaching children about contraception in
addition to abstinence. 20 Hence, this is unlikely to account for the whole
extent of the position of the Bush administration. The other possible reasons
for this support are the object of this section.
For politicians, one of abstinence’s appeals at the discursive level is
the very emotional nature of this subject, which involves two emotionally
charged elements often seen as antagonistic: sex and children. The strategy of
privileging an emotional discourse over rational political and economic
analysis did not originate in the Bush administration but has been the main
political tool of the “new” right, as well as the “new” left - for example in
Great Britain with Tony Blair and his New Labour Party 21 - since the Reagan
era. This phenomenon dubbed by professor of English Lauren Berlant as “the
Reaganite cultural revolution” 22 has had, in her view, several major
consequences, which include the increased use by politicians of a “rhetoric of
intimacy” in order to manage the growing economic inequalities dividing the
US population. She argues that

[b]y defining the United States as a place where normal

intimacy is considered the foundation of the citizen’s
happiness, the right has attempted to control the ways
questions of economic survival are seen as matters of
citizenship. This use of intimacy is extremely complicated.
First, it helps displace from sustained public scrutiny the
relation between congealed corporate wealth and the shifting
conditions of labor; second, it becomes a rhetorical means by
which the causes of U.S. income inequality and job instability
in all sectors of the economy can be personalized, rephrased in
terms of individual’s capacity to respond flexibly to the new
“opportunities” presented to them within an increasingly
volatile economy […]. 23

It is this same dynamic which was observed in Chapter 10 in the case of

teenage mothers being held responsible by conservatives for the deficit of the
welfare state along with numerous other social “evils,” while abstinence and
 Claire Greslé-Favier 203
______________________________________________________________
personal self-control were deemed to be the solution to most societal
problems.
Seven years after Berlant and in the midst of the heated campaign
for the reelection of G.W. Bush, polemical journalist Thomas Frank argued
along a similar line in his popular book What’s the Matter with Kansas? How
Conservatives Won the Heart of America. He postulates that contemporary
conservative politics are defined by what he calls “The Great Backlash,” a
form of conservatism that “mobilizes voters with explosive social issues […]
which it then marries to pro-business economic policies.” This way, “cultural
anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends.” 24 For Frank, this strategy
constitutes the real achievement of contemporary conservatism and ensures
the reelection of Republican presidents regardless of their success or failures
in managing the country. Of course, after the victory of Barack Obama in the
last presidential election this assertion would have to be mitigated.
But why are abstinence, and sexual issues in general, particularly
suited to this kind of displacement and to the stimulation of popular
anxieties? As Jeffrey Weeks argued, it is the “chameleon-like” 25 quality of
sexuality - the fact that it can be associated with extreme feelings both
positive and negative, as well as the way it has come to be defined as a
constituting part of our identity as human beings 26 - that makes it a
“particularly sensitive conductor of cultural influences, and hence of social
and political division.” 27
Another powerful catalyst of social anxiety is the appeal to the
protection of children. In her classic essay “Thinking Sex”, anthropologist
Gayle Rubin noted that “for over a century, no tactic for stirring up erotic
hysteria has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children.” 28 It is through
its association with sexuality that the issue of child protection really appeals
to the masses. On the contrary, child poverty and physical mistreatment,
though much more widespread and dangerous, rarely stir up mass
mobilisation. A revealing example of this can be found in the document
President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of Achievement issued by
the White House in August 2004. Under the title “Protecting Children” the
achievements listed were in the following order:

- the signature of acts to give “law enforcement new tools

to prevent, investigate, and prosecute violent crimes against
children and increase punishment for Federal crimes
against children;”
- the expansion and coordination of a system to notify
“the public about child abductions;”
- the strengthening of laws against child pornography;
- the launching of “Operation Predator, a comprehensive
initiative to safeguard children from foreign, national
204 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
pedophiles, human traffickers, international sex tourists,
and internet pornographers;”
- the signature of legislations “requiring states to conduct
criminal background checks on prospective foster and
adoptive parents;”
- the doubling of funds for abstinence-only education;
- the development of programmes of adult mentoring for
disadvantaged children;
- the defence of the Children’s Internet Protection Act;
- concluding with the statement that “smoking, drinking,
and the use of illegal drugs among teenagers all fell
between 2001 and 2003.” 29

No mention of any initiative concerning children’s health care, poverty or

welfare state assistance was made in this section.
In its association of children and sexuality, two privileged catalysts
of social anxiety, abstinence provides an ideal ground on which to build
“moral panics.” Jeffrey Weeks defines moral panics as

flurries of social anxiety, usually focusing on a condition or

person, or group of persons, who become defined as a
threat to accepted social values and assumptions. They
arise generally in situations of confusion and ambiguity, in
periods when the boundaries between legitimate and
illegitimate behaviour seem to need redefining or
classification. Classic moral panics in the past have often
produced drastic results, in the form of moral witch-hunts,
physical assault and legislative action. […] A significant
feature in many of them has been the connection that has
been made between sex and disease, disease becoming a
metaphor for dirt and decay. 30

Pro-abstinence discourses and the anxiety they stir over the issue of teenage
sexuality, display the features of Weeks’ moral panics. They target a group of
persons as the object of an anxiety generated in a period of “confusion and
ambiguity” over sexual behavior - of adults as well as youths - and over
traditional boundaries between adults and children, and they subsequently
generate numerous legislative actions. Moreover, pro-abstinence discourses
over the past twenty years have inscribed teenage sex in a discourse of
“danger,” “disease,” “epidemic” and “moral decay.”
The notion of moral panic is even more enlightening in
understanding abstinence rhetoric in conjunction with the concept of the
“epidemic” as defined by philosopher Linda Singer. Throughout the past
 Claire Greslé-Favier 205
______________________________________________________________
decade, various problems that abstinence was supposed to address have been
raised to the status of “epidemic” either by the government, conservative
Christians or the media: the “teen pregnancy epidemic” addressed by Pillow
in her book and Meeker’s “STD epidemic”, also targeted by the Center for
Disease Control (CDC), have been followed by a teenage “oral sex epidemic”
all of them being generally encompassed under the more global “teen sex
epidemic.”
I am indebted to Wanda S. Pillow not only for her brilliant analysis
of social policy and teen pregnancy but also for her approach to this
phenomenon through the work of philosopher Linda Singer. In this section, I
likewise use the work of Singer to analyse the mechanisms of power that
constitute the subtext of pro-abstinence discourses through the concept of
“epidemic.”
In her book Erotic Welfare: Sexual Theory and Politics in the Age of
Epidemic, Singer uses the theories developed by Foucault as well as the
analyses of the “plague” by Albert Camus, to define the AIDS epidemic as “a
political construct.” 31 Following a tradition inaugurated by Susan Sontag,
Singer explains that though the language of epidemic came back in use in the
1980s and 1990s with the AIDS epidemic, AIDS is neither the actual “site of
anxiety,” nor the only phenomenon being described by a rhetoric of
pathological proliferation. 32 She argues that this original epidemic gave birth
to a whole discursive process of control that defined different, and generally
sexual, phenomena - divorce, single-motherhood, teen pregnancy - as having
reached “epidemic” proportions. For an epidemic “is a phenomenon that in
its very representation calls for indeed, seems to demand some form of
managerial response, some mobilised effort of control.” 33
In her claim that “epidemics” are political constructs, Singer does
not imply that these are solely and coherently operated by a specific instance
of power, but that they are more confusedly acting at different levels and
from numerous, often conflicting, and even sometimes incompatible fronts. 34
Pillow provides here an interesting clarification of Singer’s thought through a
reference to Foucault:

Modern regulatory power, as Foucault demonstrated, is

“less likely to rely on force, but more likely to be
comprised of disciplinary regimes, systems of surveillance,
and normalizing tactics” 35 that impact our ideologies and
actions just as effectively, perhaps even more effectively.
Foucault and others understand that power in this way is
not simply located in positional power, but evident as “bio-
power” in our everyday practices, and interpreted and
reinforced in educational and legal institutions and
discursive arena such as the media. Policy enacts and
206 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
reinforces modern regulatory power and is more regulatory
when a social problem, like teen pregnancy, is defined as
being of epidemic proportions. 36

In the case of abstinence, “power” or “bio-power” is enacted and reinforced

through abstinence-curriculum in schools, legislative restriction on abortion,
contraception and sex-education as well as by the media. It is interesting to
note here that accounts of “wild” teen sex and “oral sex” as well as “STD
epidemics”, for example, are not only being circulated by “radical” authors
like Meeker, but also by mainstream media figures like TV hosts Oprah
Winfrey and Dr. Phil McGraw. 37
The concept of the epidemic refers to the idea of a “crisis,” of a
phenomenon which has spun out of control and therefore requires a shift in
the modes of action. The epidemic, being defined as a “threat,” generates a
“kind of panic logic” - “epidemics” are thus intimately linked to the “moral
panics” defined by Weeks - that justify dramatic containment measures.
These dramatic measures alter the old paradigms defining as acceptable
disciplinary means of control that under normal circumstances would be
considered undemocratic. 38 For instance, a Google search reveals many
occurrences of the expression “terrorism epidemic.” Envisaging terrorism
through this lens implies that this phenomenon requires control to an extent
that justifies the implementation of the Patriot Act and other infringements
on citizens’ right to privacy. Likewise, the discursive construction of teenage
sexuality as an “epidemic” by the government, justifies the exceptional
demand for “abstinence by conservative Christians, the media, as well as in
some cases more liberal instances.” These discourses are, for example,
framed in terms of danger, physical or psychological like STDs, depression,
suicide, teen pregnancy and excess like in the case of teen sex orgies and
widespread oral sex among middle-school pupils. Interestingly, Singer
explains, epidemic logic

depends on certain structuring contradictions, proliferating

what it seeks to contain, producing what it regulates. The
logic of epidemic depends upon the perpetual revival of an
anxiety it seeks to control, inciting a crisis of contagion that
spreads to ever new sectors of cultural life which, in turn,
justify and necessitate specific regulatory apparatus which
then compensate - materially and symbolically - for the
crisis it has produced. 39

This remark appears particularly well suited to the case of

abstinence-only, as this drastic measure has proven inefficient in curbing the
different epidemics it sought to address, while at the same time abstinence
 Claire Greslé-Favier 207
______________________________________________________________
discourses perpetually generate anxiety over new forms of sexual dangers
menacing American children. Singer argues that concerns about health can
justify numerous and radical measures of control over bodies and sexual
exchanges. The same can be argued for concerns over children’s safety, be it
physical or “moral.” She adds that because epidemics

justify and are in fact constructed in order to necessitate a

complex system of surveillance and intervention, epidemic
situations often provide occasions for the reinstitution of
hegemonic lines of authority and control. 40

In the USA, for example, the anxiety over the AIDS epidemic was used by
conservative groups of diverse hues like those of Jerry Falwell or Lyndon
Larouche to demand the regulation of sexual practices through limitations of
the right to abortion or sexual education as well as, of course, a strict control
of special risk populations like gays and drug users. Singer argues that
conservative groups have been extremely successful in using epidemic
rhetoric for their own ends due to their sharp understanding of these as more
than just “medico-bureaucratic problematics.”
Taking her inspiration from Camus, 41 she explains that epidemics or
“plagues” radically question the societal and moral order:

[F]aced with a plague one can no longer simply go on with

business as usual. [The individual] is forced to call [his/her]
habits, values, and pleasures into question, precisely
because the world in which [s/he] had a place is in the
process of slipping away, disrupted in a way that always
feels like an imposition, and seems unjustified, senseless. 42

The success of conservatives lies in their ability to provide all-

encompassing moral certitudes as answers to “plagues,” by inscribing these
in a process of retribution for the transgression committed since the sexual
revolution and the establishment of a non-religious morality. Thus epidemics
like AIDS or teen pregnancy are used to market the reestablishment of
“family values.” Singer writes that in

the social imagery offered, AIDS is but a symptom of the

loss or erosion of authority, i.e., absolutist, religious,
paternalistic authority, which was better suited to organize
energies for socially useful purposes like reproduction and
consumption. The failure to heed that authority, in the
name of “liberalization,” “tolerance,” or “sexual
liberation,” lies at the root of the crisis as we now suffer the
208 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
consequences of sexual proliferation, which threatens not
only our physical well-being, but our spiritual health as
well. 43

In this quote, AIDS could easily be replaced by STDs, teen pregnancy, or

phenomena that have achieved the status of the “epidemic.”
Defining the phenomena addressed by abstinence as having reached
epidemic proportions is particularly useful for conservatives as it enables
them to frame them in this rhetoric, and the potential for control it generates,
in spite of the fact that these are not necessarily of a medical and infectious
nature. Singer explains that the establishment of

a connection between epidemic and transgression has

allowed for the rapid transmission of the former to
phenomena that are outside the sphere of disease. […] The
use of this language marks all of these phenomena as
targets for intervention because they have been designated
as unacceptable, while at the same time reproducing the
power that authorizes and justifies their deployment. 44

Defining “teenage sexuality” as an “epidemic” enables conservative

Christians, as well as conservative politicians like the members of the Bush
administration, to implement measures of control over teenage sexuality that
contribute to the reassertion of traditional hierarchies. In this they are
supported by the media which, as argued by film theorist Richard Dyer,
constantly manage the contradictions within the dominant ideology in order
to maintain its hegemonic status by occasionally denouncing its negative
aspects to preserve the appearance of objectivity. 45
The interest of the government in maintaining traditional hierarchies
especially in times of apparent social inequalities lies in the appeal they
constitute for anxious voters displaying a strong desire for stability.
Philosopher Valerie Daoust explains that it is easier for politicians to keep the
power by grounding their policies on traditional categories, since these are
familiar and acknowledged by all. 46 Hence,

[t]he idea of the contemporary traditional family, with all

its contradictions, enables politicians to legitimate a certain
type of family cell and to apply their policies to established
institutions. Thus they maintain the structures of the state
even if reality does not necessarily conform to it.
Obviously, the effect achieved is to legitimate the
traditional family where it still fulfills its role of social
reproduction. 47
 Claire Greslé-Favier 209
______________________________________________________________
Pro-abstinence discourses contributed to the Bush administration’s
strategy of maintenance of traditional hierarchies and social status quo as
well as to the displacement of citizens’ anxieties from economic and social
concerns onto “moral panics” or “epidemics.” The Bush administration, like
conservative Christians, attempted through these discourses to establish its
influence over their “voters” or “followers.” In spite of the fact that
conservative Christians appear to seek to “turn back the clock” to the 1950s,
their movement is no more revolutionary than the Republican Party, since
success for them would result in purposelessness. Hence, it is as much in
their interest to preserve the status quo even though they present it as
unsatisfactory and as in a state of crisis. Likewise, the Bush administration,
or any government, had little interest in actually eradicating the epidemics it
contributed to “create.” For instance the Bush administration, which built its
politics around the threat of terrorism after 9/11, would not have benefited
from the decrease of this menace. On the contrary it maintained its citizens in
a state of fear and alert by constantly reasserting the danger constituted by
terrorism and with its military intervention in Iraq it strengthened the power
of Al-Qaeda as an anti-American force.
By promoting delayed gratification and criticising the
oversexualised media and fashion industry, abstinence gives the appearance
of being in conflict with the defense of capitalism advocated by the
Republican Party, but this impression is only superficial. Conservative
Christians like the LaHayes and Meeker might genuinely wish the media and
the fashion industry to be censured, but the Heritage Foundation and the
Bush administration, while occasionally calling for such a censorship, did not
contribute to any change in that direction. In fact, for Rosemary Radford
Ruether the “Christian Right” plays an important role in maintaining an
unequal capitalist economy. She argues that although the Christian Right

claims victimization in the struggle against the evil forces

of feminism, homosexuality, and “secular humanism,” it is
in fact thoroughly system-supporting in its pro-capitalist
commitment to traditional class hierarchies. Even as it
diverts attention by crusading for the reestablishment of
sex/gender hierarchy, it plays an integral role in the effort
to build a conservative political majority that will ratify the
growing concentration of wealth in the upper 20 percent of
American society and the impoverishment of working-class
and unemployed people. 48

Besides, abstinence is actually at the source of a lucrative market of

Christian merchandising, pedagogic tools, etc. 49 It can also be argued that by
being brought into the mainstream, abstinence has been recycled as a
210 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
marketable minority sexual culture like it has been the case for S&M and
other sex-based “life styles.”
The goals of conservative Christians and the G.W. Bush
administration, although not similar, reached at this historical conjunction a
significant level of congruity and required similar means to be achieved.
Among these were pro-abstinence discourses. Yet these two groups were far
from being mirror images of each other, and this for several reasons. First,
the “target audiences” of their discursive strategies were not the same.
Conservative Christians’ targets are fellow believers and potential converts.
They try to achieve influence over mainstream media and public discourses
however; they need to constitute an antagonistic group under the tag “liberal”
or “secular humanist” to represent the “sinners” against which they can
define themselves as “righteous.”
On the opposite, the Bush administration, as an elected body, needed
to address the population at large or at least present the appearance of doing
so. This entailed that the meanings they invested in the major terms of pro-
abstinence discourses had to be differentiated from those invested by
conservative Christians even though they were used in similar discursive
contexts. For instance, under the concept of “body” the Bush administration
as a national and secular authority could not include the religious meaning
given to it by the LaHayes when they explain that the body is a “member of
Christ himself.” 50 For a government the bodies of its citizens are
“populations,” “workforces,” resources to be managed through measures of
hygiene and public health. 51 For example entering the word “body” in the
search engine of the US Department of Health and Human Services at the
time when the Bush administration was still in office, would have directed
the user to resources, often targeted at women in particular, underlining the
role their bodies play in population growth and health, and providing
information on issues such as: “reproductive health,” “puberty,” “getting
enough sleep,” “grooming and hygiene,” “fighting germs” or “eating
disorders.” 52
Likewise, “sexuality” is not openly invested with a spiritual
meaning, but requires management of its reproductive function to ensure the
desired population growth. 53 A similar Internet search would have directed
the user to resources dealing with “reproductive issues,” “abstinence,”
“homosexuality,” “teen pregnancy,” “contraception” or “sexual
dysfunction.” 54 Searching for abstinence similarly highlighted resources
stating that “Safe Sex is No Sex” thus positioning the issue in terms of health
- physical and psychological - and not in terms of religious requirement.
The definition of the “family” that followed from the G.W. Bush
administration’s policies was that of the traditional family, established by
marriage, comprising children and both heterosexual parents of opposite
sexes. As for the issue of gender within this framework, though the
 Claire Greslé-Favier 211
______________________________________________________________
administration had to oppose gender discrimination, it made clear in its
support of the traditional Fatherhood Initiative that fathers as males bring a
unique component to their children’s education. Besides, after a quick web
search, girls appeared to be the major target of their abstinence and
reproductive health messages. Indeed, while there was a whole website
devoted to girls’ health, reproductive or not, which also promotes abstinence
- www. girlshealth.gov - there was no equivalent for boys, who are referred
to general websites - www. 4parents.gov. The vision of the role of the woman
as mainly responsible for the management of her reproductive capacities was
thus highlighted, as well as the unique role of the male in the family,
consequently suggesting an opposition to lesbian or single-parenthood.
This political discourse, though distinct in its meanings from that of
conservative Christians, was obviously not entirely incompatible with this
latter as they both shared a vision of traditional familial and social structures.
The pro-abstinence discourse of the Bush administration appeared in many
occurrences to be marked by an ideological ambiguity apparently originating
on the one hand in the strong religious commitment of the president and of
many of his advisors and on the other hand in an attempt to garner support
for conservative Christians. This was particularly visible in the support of the
Fatherhood Initiative or to abstinence-only education; the opposition to
abortion; to contraception access; stem cell research; to gay marriage or in
the support of faith-based organisations. Hence, it is reasonable to assert that
the pro-abstinence discourses of the Bush administration, while having
different goals and strategies, intersected with and were influenced in a
significant manner by those of conservative Christians.
In this case the personal religious choices of a number of members
of the Bush administration appear to have influenced the political strategies
of the government in a manner which can be deemed excessive or at least
unusual, since it generated a non-negligible opposition from many American
citizens and civil rights organisations. As the Bush administration gathered
self-confidence, this aspect came even more into light through initiatives
which appeared devoid of any political relevance and attracted attention to
this religious bias. This was witnessed for example in the extension of
abstinence-only education programmes to all unmarried persons up to the age
of twenty-nine, thus preaching abstinence to an age group more than 90% of
which had already had sex. 55 Another instance of this bias can be found in
the President’s resort to executive orders to increase funding for faith-based
organisations involved in foreign aid, after such measures were opposed by
Congress which raised concerns about the respect of the separation of church
and state. 56
The question of the personal link between the Bush administration
and the conservative Christian community is also particularly complex. Bush
himself is a friend of Franklin Graham and of his father and addressed the
212 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________
annual National Day of Prayer, whose main organizer is Shirley Dobson. In
2001 Bush was even heralded by some conservative Christians as the “new
leader of the religious right in America.” 57 Moreover, it has been often
pointed out by the press that he appointed many conservative Christians in
his administration, among others his former attorney general John Ashcroft,
or the pro-life activist Eric Keroack, former deputy assistant secretary for
population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services or his
appointment as Supreme Court justice of pro-life Samuel Alito. 58 In such
cases the question of the blurring of boundaries between political and
religious discourses became even more problematic, as the possibility to
dissociate faith and political action seemed difficult in the case of politicians
who displayed such a deep religious engagement on issues with which they
had to deal at a political level. This was especially the case when one
assumed that they had been chosen especially for this religious commitment.
These individual connections, together with the ideological
ambiguities displayed by the Bush administration, contributed to the high
level of congruity between religious and political pro-abstinence discourses,
in spite of the fact that they used these to fulfill different functions.
Pro-abstinence discourses, while they were used by the Bush
administration to reinforce a certain number of conservative narratives and
incorporate them into mainstream political discourse, also fulfilled the
“hidden” agenda of focusing the population’s anxieties onto moral rather than
economic issues and displacing its concerns over living conditions onto
“moral panics” or epidemics. As explained in the coming chapter, another of
the subtexts of pro-abstinence discourses is the discursive “management” of
teenage sexuality in order to strengthen traditional hierarchies.

Notes
1
Levine, 2002, p.91.
2
ibid., p.103.
3
Yet this was far from the truth, in 2006, in her book George W. Bush and
the War on Women, Barbara Finlay estimated the percentage of evangelicals
in the US population to be no more than 30%; Finlay, 2006, p.8.
4
Bush, 2004.
5
Ashbee, 2007, p.104.
6
M S Northcott, An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic Religion and
American Empire, I. B. Tauris, London, 2004, p.3.
7
J Siker, ‘President Bush, Biblical faith, and the Politics of Religion,’
Religious StudiesNews. SBL edition, May 2003, 4 (5), viewed on 6 February
2007, <http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=151>
8
H Fineman, ‘Bush and God,’ Newsweek, March 10, 2003: 22.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 213
______________________________________________________________

9
J Adler, ‘The New Naysayers,’ Newsweek Online, 11 September 2006,
viewed on 24 March 2009, <http://www.newsweek.com/id/45574>
10
J Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689, April 2002, viewed on 8
February 2007, <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-
new2?id=LocTole.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/moden
g/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1>
11
Hagelin, 2005b, p.149.
12
Diamond, 1998, p.5.
13
M Foucault, The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought,
Paul Rabinow (ed), Penguin Books, London, 1991, p.322.
14
Quoted in S Mehta, ‘Teens’ Dancing Is Freaking Out the Adults,’ Los
Angeles Times, 17 October 2006, viewed on 8 December 2006,
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
freaking17oct17,0,4105810.story?coll=la-home-headlines>
15
ibid.
16
S Coates, ‘God Is Cut From Film of Dark Materials’, The Times Online, 8
December 2004, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article400396.ece>
17
LaHaye, 1998a, p.23.
18
Here are several instances of this remark. The Canadian newspaper Le
Devoir reported in August 2006: “l’administration américaine est accusée
d'avoir conçu ce plan pour apaiser sa base républicaine conservatrice pour
des raisons politiques, religieuses et morales, ce que démentent de hauts
responsables de Washington,” (The US government is accused of having
devised this plan in order to appease the conservative Republican grassroots,
for political, religious and moral reasons. This has been denied by high
ranking officials in Washington), Le Devoir, ‘La stratégie américaine de
l’abstinence soulève les critiques,’ Le Devoir, 15 August 2006, viewed on 8
February 2007, <http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/08/15/115899.html>.
The French daily newspaper Le Monde observed “en prônant la virginité
avant le mariage, M. Bush répond aux vœux de la droite chrétienne,” (by
promoting virginity, Mr. Bush caters to the needs of the Christian Right), M
Fauchier-Delavigne, ‘L’abstinence vue par la presse des Etats-Unis,’ Le
Monde.fr, 8 January 2003, viewed on 8 February 2007,
<http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/EH/F/cause/lectures/abstinence_
Etats-Unis.htm>. December 9, 2002 Debra Rosenberg a Newsweek journalist
argued “that’s just the kind of response George W. Bush was hoping for. To
the White House, abstinence seems like an easy win: it resonates with
conservative voters, but doesn’t upset pro-choice moderates,” D Rosenberg,
‘The Battle Over Abstinence,’ Newsweek, 9 December 2002, 8 February
2007,
214 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

<http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:8r4Am9U68hwJ:www.indiana.edu/~
llc/Current_Students/q199/battle.pdf+newsweek+human+rights+watch+absti
nence+2002&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=de>. A journalist for the British
newspaper The Observer wrote on April 28, 2002 that “one in four sexually
active teenagers contracts a sexually transmitted disease each year. Bush is
under fire from his conservative Right over a number of issues, from the
Middle East to immigration, and there is no safer place to satisfy it than on
moral high ground it holds dear,” E Vulliamy, ‘Bush Promotes Virgin Values
to Curb Teen Sex,’ The Observer, 28 April 2002, 8 February 2007,
<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,,706578,00.html>. The German
weekly Die Zeit observed regarding abstinence that “dabei wird die
erzkonservative Basis auch jenseits der evangelikalen Propheten mobilisiert,”
(with this the conservtiave grassroots is mobilized beyond the evangelical
prophets), T Schimmeck, ‘Der Krieg gegen Sex,’ Die Zeit, 9 September
2004, viewed on 8 February 2007, <http://www.zeit.de/2004/38/Ami-
Keuschheit?page=all>.
19
On this point I disagree with Edward Ashbee; see introduction of this book.
20
The Sex Education in America: General Public/Parents Survey led by
National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy
School of Government of Harvard, found that 72% of parents of children
from grades 7 to 8 and 65% of parents of children from grades 9-12 thought
that federal money should “be used to fund more comprehensive sex
education programmes that include information on how to obtain and use
condoms and other contraceptives,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004, p.7,
and that 72% of parents of children from grades 7 to 8 and 70% of parents of
children from grades 9-12 were concerned that “not providing information
about how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception might mean
more teens will have unsafe sexual intercourse,” Kaiser Family Foundation,
2004, p.22.
21
Bhattacharyya, 2002, p.74)
22
L Berlant, The Queen of America Goes to Washington City, Duke
University Press, Durham and London, 1997, p.8.
23
ibid., p.8.
24
Frank, 2004, p.5.
25
Weeks, 1986, p.11.
26
M Foucault, M., Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir, Éditions
Gallimard, Paris, 1976.
27
Weeks, 1986, p.11.
28
Rubin, 1984, p.271.
29
White House, 2004, p.36.
30
Weeks, 1986, pp.96-97.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 215
______________________________________________________________

31
L Singer, Erotic Welfare: Sexual Theory and Politics in the Age of
Epidemic, Routledge, London & New York, 1993, p.27.
32
ibid., p.27.
33
ibid., p.27.
34
ibid., p.27.
35
W Rushing, ‘Sin, Sex, and Segregation: Social Control and the Education
of Southern Women.’ Gender and Education, June 2002, 14 (2), pp.167-179,
p.168.
36
Pillow, 2004, p.19.
37
See Oprah.com, ‘A New Kind of Spin the Bottle: Dr. Phil on Alarming
Sexual Behavior Among Children,’ 7 May 2002, 12 February 2007,
<http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020507_b.j
html>
38
Singer, 1993, p.28.
39
ibid., p.29.
40
ibid., p.31.
41
See A Camus, La Peste, 1947.
42
Singer, 1993, p.31.
43
ibid., p.31-32.
44
ibid., p.118.
45
R Dyer, Stars, British Film Institute, London, 1998, p.2-3.
46
V Daoust, De la sexualité en démocratie: L’individu libre et ses espaces
identitaires, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2005, p.97.
47
Daoust, 2005, p.102, my translation.
48
Radford Ruether, 2001, pp.177-178.
49
Hendershot, 2004.
50
LaHaye, 1998a, p.23.
51
Foucault, 1976, p.184.
52
<www.hhs.gov> and <http://www.girlshealth.gov/body/>, viewed 2 July
2007.
53
Foucault, 1976, pp.191-192.
54
<www.hhs.gov>, viewed 2 July 2007.
55
Kaisernetwork.org, ‘Federal Guidelines Expand Scope of Abstinence
Education Funds To Include People up to Age 29,’ 31 October 2006, viewed
11 May 2007,
<http://kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_repro_recent_reports.cfm?dr_cat
=2&show=yes&dr_DateTime=10-31-06#40759>
56
F Stockman, et al., ‘Bush Brings Faith to Foreign Aid,’ The Boston Globe
Online. 8 October 2006, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_
to_foreign_aid/>
216 The Different Functions of Pro-Abstinence Discourses
______________________________________________________________

57
D Milbank, ‘Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office,’ The
WashingtonPost.com, 24 December 2001, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19253-
2001Dec23?language=printer>
58
For an even more detailed record on the issue of appointments see Finlay
2006.
 Chapter 13
A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies

I cannot avoid seeing, now, the small tattoo on my ankle. Four

digits and an eye, a passport in reverse. It’s supposed to
guarantee that I will never be able to fade, finally into another
landscape. I am too important, too scarce, for that. I am a
national resource. 1

In the previous chapter, several subtexts of pro-abstinence

discourses have been made visible: the way these discourses on the one hand
enable conservative Christians to feed the feeling of being in the middle of a
culture war which ensures its followers’ commitment and on the other hand
the role they played for the Bush administration in the maintenance of a
status quo favorable to its electoral success while focusing the population’s
attention on emotional issues rather than economic ones. In this chapter the
emphasis will be placed on the use of pro-abstinence discourses by both the
Bush administration and conservative Christians to maintain a hierarchical
dominance over teenagers and the functions of this dominance, while
highlighting the symbolical function of teenage sexuality as a “national
resource.” Not unlike the “handmaid” in Atwood’s dystopic north-American
religious dictatorship, who spends her existence locked up in a room waiting
to be impregnated by a member of the ruling class, teenagers’ sexuality in
contemporary United States is, discursively at least, locked up, their desire
under control and suppressed until marriage when they can be released in a
socially productive way.
Sexual-abstinence-only-before-marriage, with the very narrow
sexual choices it offers teenagers and the conservative vision of the family it
promotes has, in the past decade, raised important ethical concerns that have
been pointed out by various organisations, including Advocates for Youth or
Human Rights Watch. Some of these concerns are the infringement of
youths’ rights to information, health care and sexual agency.
Pro-abstinence discourses in their emphasis on the limitation of
sexual acts to marriage reassert a system of hierarchy based on the concept of
“good sexual citizenship” as defined by sociologist Steven Seidman. 2 They
also reinforce a domination over and discrimination against youths by
denying the legitimacy of their sexual expression and refusing to give them
literally “vital” information.
In his study of gay and lesbian life Seidman defines the good sexual
citizen in contemporary America as
218 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
an individual whose sexual behavior conforms to
traditional gender norms, who links sex to intimacy, love,
monogamy, and preferably marriage, and who restricts sex
to private acts that exhibit romantic or caring qualities. 3

In his view “sexual citizenship establishes social boundaries between insiders

(good citizens) and outsiders (bad citizens),” 4 outsiders being defined as
“abnormal,” “diseased,” or “unhealthy” 5 with a potential to infect the rest of
the population if not properly managed. This image of the good sexual citizen
is, he argues, dominated by “roughly speaking, white, Christian, rich, abled,
straight” males. 6 It is promoted in the mainstream culture through the media,
literature, the academia, schools, corporations, churches, etc. 7 In this respect,
even citizens who have achieved civil rights and public recognition might
still be disenfranchised like “blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, the disabled,
and gays.” 8
The vision of abstinence applied by conservative Christians fits in
this frame of good sexual citizenship. Since many conservative Christians are
“white,” middle-class and “straight,” they can identify as “insiders” and feel
legitimated in demanding to be protected from possible infections by sexual
deviants such as gays or teenage mothers.
Through its pro-abstinence discourses, the US government also
supported this narrow definition of sexual citizenship. This is particularly
visible in several of the requirements for abstinence-only programs, which
are still valid at the beginning of the Barack Obama’s presidency and specify
that these programs must teach:

B - abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the

expected standard for all school-age children; […]
D - that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the
context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual
activity;
E - that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is
likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F - that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have
harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and
society; […]
H - the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before
engaging in sexual activity. 9

This definition, coming as it does from the US government, appears

extremely problematic as it excludes from its terms many citizens whose
rights it is supposed to protect. Among them are: unmarried youths; gays and
 Claire Greslé-Favier 219
______________________________________________________________
lesbians; cohabiting couples; and the poor who might not be able to afford
marriage and belong predominantly to racial minorities.
Considering the definition of the good sexual citizen promoted by
pro-abstinence discourses, youths find themselves particularly
disenfranchised on several grounds. First, because abstinence education
reflects a discriminatory attitude defined as “adultism.” This concept already
used in the context of abstinence by sociologist Jessica Fields, sheds light on
questions of hierarchies within pro-abstinence discourses. John Bell, the co-
founder of the prominent non-profit organization Youthbuild USA, defines
adultism as a global “disrespect of the young.”

In our society, for the most part, young people are

considered less important than and inferior to adults. They
are not taken seriously and not included as decision makers
in the broader life of their communities. 10

They are also under the influence of their parents and other meaningful adults
who tell them what to or what not to wear, eat, listen to, etc.
Since the appearance of this concept in the late 19th century,
adolescence has been envisaged as a transitory stage from childhood to
adulthood, where time and rights are suspended as youths expect their
transformation into adults. 11 Not only are they expected to fulfill the
expectations of their parents but also of their peers as they learn “proper”
socialisation and norms. 12 The life of youths is conceived as following the
predetermined script of studying, getting a job, marrying and having children.
However, these traditional scripts no longer account for the experience of the
majority of Americans for whom these events might not occur in this order or
at all. 13 An important emphasis is also laid on the asexual nature of
adolescence as a means of differentiating adults from children. In her book
Act Your Age: A Cultural Construction of Adolescence, professor of
education Nancy Lesko underlines that when youth upset these scripts and
act in a sexual way deemed inappropriate for their age group they generate
“moral panics” like the one over teen pregnancy. 14 Gayle Rubin also
emphasised that

[t]he law is especially ferocious in maintaining the

boundary between childhood “innocence” and “adult”
sexuality. Rather than recognizing the sexuality of the
young, and attempting to provide for it in a caring and
responsible manner, our culture denies and punishes erotic
interest and activity by anyone under the local age of
consent. 15
220 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
This is especially the case with pro-abstinence discourses, which completely
deny the legitimacy of teenage sexuality and go as far as denying youths’
access and information on contraception, abortion or sexual diversity while
substituting for it scientifically incorrect data. This problem has been pointed
to by Human Rights Watch, which stated in 2002 that

[f]ederally funded abstinence-only programs, in keeping

with their federal mandate, deny children basic information
that could protect them from HIV/AIDS infection and
discriminate against gay and lesbian children. In so doing,
these programs […] interfere with fundamental rights to
information, to health and to equal protection under the
law. 16

Likewise, in its emphasis on “parental rights,” pro-abstinence discourses

appear to exceed in many cases legitimate parental care and fall into
“adultism.”
Inscribing themselves into the restrictive sexual tradition, pro-
abstinence discourses define children as too immature for sexual activity
which can only have negative and even lethal consequences like depression,
teen pregnancy, STDs or suicide and is considered as a “social problem”
rather than part of normal youth development. This “immaturity” of teenagers
is used to justify an extended control over their private lives through, for
example, the strict dating guidelines evoked in the previous chapter. Under
the guise of child protection, parents are encouraged not only by conservative
Christian authors, as well as the Bush administration when it was in office, 17
to monitor what their children watch, listen to, wear, whom they socialise
with, where they go, what kind of activities they do. Parents are even
encouraged by Hagelin to make statements on the choices of other children
than their own. She explains proudly that her daughter

knows, and even warns her friends, that bare bellies and
bare upper thighs are not allowed in our house. Period.
Often, her friends don’t believe her. She’s brought home
more than one friend who has learned otherwise when I’ve
sent them back upstairs to find something in my closet to
cover-up with. 18

Youths are especially excluded from the concept of good

citizenship, since most of its terms are de facto unavailable to them. First of
all, in many states, due to the various legal “age of consent” laws, they are
excluded from a wide range of sexual activity. In the United States the age of
consent varies from 14 to 18, with differences for hetero- or homosexual
 Claire Greslé-Favier 221
______________________________________________________________
relationships. In many cases they are also excluded from marriage, either by
law or simply by their status as dependent on adults for their care. It is also
difficult for them to comply with the terms of the definition of good sexual
citizenship provided by Seidman like linking “sex to intimacy, [and] love
[…] and […] restrict[ing] sex to private acts.” 19 The development of
intimacy is always limited for a couple of teens since they live under their
parents’ roof, a situation which also affects their access to privacy. Jessica
Fields notes that youths

enjoy little privacy, and few have their own “most private
of spaces.” Instead, most live under the roofs, rules, and
regulation of parents, guardians, and educators, most of
whom feel (and are) entitled to deny young people any
privacy. […] In order to pursue even the most chaste
behaviors, they may need to engage in public expressions
of their sexuality - flirting, holding hands, or kissing in the
dark of the movie theater or in a quiet corner of a city
park. 20

Their attachments are also routinely dismissed as being immature

“puppy love” that they will outgrow, or, if they have a sexual nature, as being
“heat” rather than love, in the terms of Tim LaHaye. 21 According to pro-
abstinence discourses, since “true love waits” for marriage, what comes
before can only be dismissed as being of a “lower” nature. The right of
teenagers to explore their sexual identity is also denied to them by the
emphasis laid by pro-abstinence discourses on heteronormativity; as well as
the legitimacy of the pleasure they feel in their emerging sexuality. 22
Denying teenagers sexual information and refusing to acknowledge
the positive dimension of teens’ desires through a “just say no message”
might also result in a long lasting lack of sexual agency. As underlined by
sexuality researcher Deborah Tolman and law professor Tracy E. Higgins,
girls who have not developed clear feelings of their sexual desires might be
pushed to give in to sexual advances that they feel they have had a share in
motivating. Denying their desires altogether might not empower them in
situations of coercion but on the contrary leave unclear the boundaries of
what they do or do not desire. For example, they might desire to attract a boy
and kiss him, but not more. On the contrary, knowing clearly what she
desires apparently enables a girl to put a clear stop to things she does not
desire. 23 This is reinforced by the fact that, as pointed by Heather
Hendershot, constructing the teenage body as “lacking self-control” and
dominated by raging hormones which can only be subdued by abstinence
“may encourage boys to be sexually violent and girls to see submission to
sexual violence as natural.” 24 By constantly reminding girls that “they have
222 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
the capacity to ignite a boy’s sexual passion” 25 by their dress, talk or by just
brushing against them and that they are responsible for unleashing male
“lust,” pro-abstinence discourses, especially coming from conservative
Christians, might weaken their capacity to resist sexual abuse by blaming
themselves for causing it. Meanwhile by telling boys that they are controlled
by their sexual instincts, these discourses might encourage them to see
themselves as less in control than they actually are. 26 Thus pro-abstinence
discourses contribute to the reinforcement of traditional sexist narratives.
Moreover, in spite of the argument that teens are irrational and
impressionable, they are expected to do better than adults in managing and
subduing their sexual urges. Trends in abortion, unplanned pregnancies or
STD rates are similar for adults and for teens, problems on which as Pillow
underlines, the U.S. ranks higher than any other industrialised country. 27
Besides, she adds, given the high US divorce rate as well as the fact that “up
to half of married persons admit to having sexual affairs outside of
marriage”, 28 is it really meaningful and just to hold teens to standards that
adults do not manage to respect themselves?
This situation appears particularly unequal in the light of the
following remark by Fields on “age of consent” and “parental consent” laws
regarding access to contraception and abortion “overall, these laws assign
young people the responsibility for managing the risks and costs associated
with their sexual activity but deny them any right to sexual privacy, let alone
dignity or pleasure.” 29
Like the “pure” Victorian woman or Atwood’s dystopic
“Handmaid”, US teens today, especially girls, can either be innocent or
“fallen”, and are held to higher standards of sexual behaviour than their more
privileged counterparts, especially white male adults. Similar to the pure
woman who was to be the moral angel of the nation and the mother of future
abiding citizens, teens are held responsible for the “morality” of the nation at
large as they symbolise its future. Hence, questions of teenage sexual
behavior are invested with a dimension that far exceeds the issue itself and
are addressed, through abstinence, at a symbolical rather than practical level.
This is particularly striking in the following quote from Elayne Bennett’s
introduction to Meeker’s book Restoring the Teenage Soul,

[a] critical mass of adolescent destructive behavior is

threatening the future and the stability of our country. After
all, we are talking about the next generation. 30

Here again, the focus is on the sexual behavior of one disenfranchised part of
the population as a means to screen from judgment the similar behavior of
the more “dominant” part of the population. It is a similar mechanism to the
one at work in the stigmatisation of African-American sexuality, which is
 Claire Greslé-Favier 223
______________________________________________________________
also operative in abstinence rhetoric. In such a framework, the less powerful
and more dependent are held more accountable for sexual behaviors that they
cannot hide as easily as the more privileged can, being under constant
surveillance from the family or the state.
Judith Levine astutely observes that, without access to abortion and
contraception, teenage sexuality is sent back to another age, denied the
benefits of reproductive technology which have achieved so much for
women’s liberation:

Without abortion, the narrative of teenage desire is

strangely, and artificially, unmoored from modern social
reality. Instead of sound policy, the anti-abortion
movement has rewritten a premodern parable, in which fate
tumbles to worse fate, sin is chastised, and sex is the
ruination of mother, child, and society. Gone is
premeditation in sex; gone too the role of technology, of
safe contraception or “planned parenthood.” Gone far away
is the relief, even joy, of ending an unwanted pregnancy
and women’s newfound power to decide what they want to
do with their bodies and their lives and when they want to
do it. 31

As I have argued in the previous chapter, the message promoted by

abstinence discourses that teenagers need boundaries is not necessarily
misled. However, the line between responsible care for children and adultism,
or infringements on human rights is sometimes very thin, especially for a
group of individuals that considers the family as the only legitimate authority
over children, while downplaying the potentially oppressive nature of this
institution. Indeed, “research shows that more than half, and some say almost
all, of sexual abuse is visited upon children by their own family members or
parental substitutes” 32 Moreover, incest with the destruction of trust that it
implies, is acknowledged as having much more lasting and destructive
consequences than abuse by a stranger. 33 Here again, a discursive
displacement is operated to shift focus from an unfortunately widespread
behavior to a more marginal one.
Pro-abstinence rhetoric and the way it reinforces hierarchical
relationships inside the family can raise concerns. By putting parents in
complete control of their children’s sexuality, pro-abstinence discourses deny
teenagers access to health information and a minimum of sexual agency.
Thus it reasserts the family as a hierarchical structure based on adultism that
disregards youth as “citizens” entitled to rights, duties and federal protection.
As will be explained now, this reinforcement of hierarchies and
224 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
“disenfranchisement” of children is also supported by an eroticization of
child and teen sex by pro-abstinence discourses.
We live in a society, which while claiming loudly to protect children
from sexual abuse, constantly eroticises them. As underlined by Judith
Levine and James Kincaid, magazines are covered with pictures of teenage
models featuring androgynous bodies, and the sexual allure of children is
permanently asserted by presenting them as victims of countless sexual
predators in and outside the family. 34
In what can appear as a paradox, pro-abstinence discourses, while
advocating sexual self-control and the de-sexualisation of the “culture,”
display complex and varied strategies to construct teens and children as
sexual objects exposed to the gaze, imagination and control of adults. In its
wish to control, watch, investigate and question teenage sexuality, pro-
abstinence discourses can be considered to obey the power-pleasure dynamic
described by Foucault in his History of Sexuality. Pro-abstinence discourses,
like

[t]he medical examination, the psychiatric investigation,

the pedagogical report, and family controls may have the
overall and apparent objective of saying no to all wayward
and unproductive sexualities, but the fact is that they
function as mechanisms with a double impetus: pleasure
and power. The pleasure that comes of exercising a power
that questions, monitors, watches, spies, searches out,
palpates, brings to light; and on the other hand, the pleasure
that kindles at having to evade this power, flee from it, fool
it, or travesty it. 35

While it is not within the scope of this study to analyse how teens might find
pleasure in evading parental control, investigating how pro-abstinence
discourses eroticise children in order to yield power over them is the focus of
this section.
Pro-abstinence discourses eroticise children, and consequently teens,
through three major discursive processes. First, by telling or retelling highly
sexualised stories in which innocent children are pressured by the “culture” to
engage in sexual acts; second, they construct children as irresistible sexual
objects for the desires of sexual predators; finally, they describe teenagers as
highly sexual creatures dominated by “raging hormones.”
In pro-abstinence discourses, the distinction between “children” and
“teenagers” is intentionally obscured. Arguably, a teenager is always
someone’s “child.” But this distinction is also blurred at a more significant
level. While the concept of abstinence conjures up the image of “sexual”
teenagers; “child abuse” on the contrary, as the term implies, conjures up the
 Claire Greslé-Favier 225
______________________________________________________________
image of a “child” even if this includes a minor, meaning anyone under
eighteen years old. The pro-abstinence discourses studied in this book all
raise up the issue of “child sexual abuse.” In most cases, they do so to argue
that teens today live in an “oversexualised” culture, which needs to be
contained as it generates sexual abuse not just by adults but also by “teens” or
“children” themselves. As mentioned earlier, in the White House document
President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of Achievement
abstinence-only education is listed under the section “child protection” next
to numerous other “achievements” concerning the prosecution of pedophiles
and the censorship of pornography. Thus, in pro-abstinence discourses the
boundaries between the child and the teenager are blurred.
Even under the category of “teenager” itself, the realities covered are
extremely varied since it concerns anyone between thirteen and nineteen
years old, an age at which one is legally an adult at least regarding sexual
matters. Jessica Fields and Celeste Hirschman underline, for example, that by
stating that “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage [is] the
expected standard for all school age children” the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 “reifies adults’ authority
over youth, reducing all young people to ‘children,’ and affording youth no
role to play in determining the standards guiding their lives.” 36 Thus, pro-
abstinence discourses reinforce the hierarchy between adults and children by
assimilating very different ages under the blanket age category of “minority”
that needs to be protected from sexuality and its consequences. As explained
in Chapter 1, this enables conservative Christians to further deny teenage
sexual desire by subsuming teens under the category of the “innocent” child.
But if teenage desire is denied in pro-abstinence discourses, teenage sexuality
is often described in almost pornographic details.
The most “extreme” example of erotic description of teen sexuality
in the texts studied in this book is provided by Meeker in Chapter 9, “High-
Risk Sex,” in Epidemic, where she offers an example of how our
“oversexualised” culture pushes originally “innocent” children towards
sexual activity. She opens the chapter with the summary of a PBS TV
documentary aired in 1999, which has since then attracted much notice, The
Lost Children of Rockdale County: 37

In 1996, THE SMALL, UPSCALE community of Conyers,

Georgia, experienced an epidemic of syphilis. More than
200 teenagers - many as young as 13 and 14 - were
infected. When officials and the media investigated, they
discovered a community in which teens gathered in large,
empty houses for drinking, drugs, and group sex. A small
core of teens had had sex with as many as 50 different
people in a short span of time (one young girl told health
226 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
officials she’d slept with at least 65 people). Some of them
had been holding “study groups,” in which they watched,
then re-enacted scenes from The Playboy Channel in their
bedrooms. Preteen girls admitted to participating in an act
they called “the sandwich,” in which one girl had oral sex
with a boy while having vaginal sex with another boy and
anal sex with a third boy, all at the same time. The girls had
also had sex with each other. 38

Though Meeker repeats this example in order to “warn” parents, it is

clear that if her book were to be online it would not pass the internet filters
recommended by Hagelin in her columns for the Heritage Foundation. The
picture she draws from the documentary is one worthy of pornographic
literature and is as titillating as it is appalling in its orgiastic excess. One can
indeed only wonder at the flexibility of teenage bodies as well as at their
sexual endurance. Compared with the transcript of the documentary Meeker
does not exaggerate what the reporters heard of the sexual activities of
Rockdale’s “lost children.” However, Meeker does mislead her readers since,
according to the transcript of the show, it was not two hundred teens who
were infected but only seventeen, the others having been just exposed to the
disease while only fifty of them “reported being involved in extreme sexual
behavior.” 39
Meeker is not the only commentator to have used the Rockdale
County story. Oprah Winfrey aired a show on the documentary on February
7, 2000, inviting specialists to reveal to the audience that “this new
generation uses casual sex to feel connected - and they’re trying everything
from sexual gymnastics to orgies to numerous sexual partners.” 40 Hagelin
uses the same device as Meeker in her book Home Invasion, where she
quotes a passage from a National Public Radio program aired more than ten
years earlier (in 1993-1994), a fact she does not specify, and reporting on a
“wild” prom night:

A hundred kneeling, teenage boys bring their faces against

the slightly sweaty thighs of their dates, grip multi-colored
garters with their teeth, and drag them off their legs. It’s a
shocking and amazing sight. But when I ask teachers about
it later, they all say, “Where have you been? They’ve done
this for years!” At homecoming apparently, things get even
more explicit. 41

In passing around these stories, conservative writers are not alone. By

repetition and alteration what might have been factual anecdotes become
 Claire Greslé-Favier 227
______________________________________________________________
“urban legends” reinforcing the sense of threat over teenage/child sexual
purity.
It is interesting to compare such stories with a survey of teenage sex
life led for NBC NEWS and People Magazine by Princeton Survey Research
Associates International in 2005. The survey found among other things that

[t]he vast majority (87%) of teens aged 13 to 16, have not

had sexual intercourse. Most (73%) have not been sexually
intimate at all. […] Fifty-five percent of teens hold that it is
“very important” to be in love before having oral sex.
Somewhat more (68%) say it is very important to be in love
before having sexual intercourse. […] One in 10 (12%)
teens have had oral sex. Almost 9 out 10 (88%) teens have
not. […] A statistically insignificant less than one-half of a
percentage of teens said they had ever been to the now
mythological oral sex party. […] Casual relationships are
not uncommon among sexually active teens. Eight percent
of 13 to 16 year-olds, which amounts to roughly half of
young teens who have had oral sex or sexual intercourse,
have been involved in a casual sexual relationship. 42

The picture drawn by this survey does not reflect the extreme statements of
“wild sex orgies” described by Meeker, Hagelin and Oprah. Even the
findings about casual sexual relationships, when put in perspective, do not
match these “dramatic accounts” of sexual cold-bloodedness and calculation:

[F]ew young teens have casual relationships exclusively.

Only fourteen percent of young teens who have had a
casual relationship say they have never been involved in a
serious relationship. 43

As pointed out by Judith Levine, “rates of youthful [sexual] activity are not
galloping upward” since the 1950s and most “sexually active teenagers,” that
is the less than 30% of 13 to 16 year olds mentioned above, are “not very
sexually active.” 44 After all, having oral sex once in five years is enough to
fit in the “sexually active” category, but representing teenage sexuality in
such an extreme manner has a particular purpose.
Constructing teen sex as necessarily deviant, extreme and unhealthy
due to the negative influence of an oversexualised culture reinforces the
appeal of abstinence as a means to moderate these influences and to provide
teenagers with a “sex-free” environment more “appropriate” to their age. By
picturing such images of debauchery, the shortcomings of the “safe sex”
approach to sexual education are clearly targeted. The message sent here is
228 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
that teenagers should not be allowed to have sex at all, since their immaturity
leads them to experiment with sexuality in ways that go against their
psychological and physical integrity like in the case of the teens of Rockdale
County referred to by Meeker. In such cases condoms and birth control are
presented as insufficient to protect “children” from harm.
In his book Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting,
James Kincaid insightfully argues that:

Our culture has enthusiastically sexualized the child while

denying just as enthusiastically that it was doing any such
thing. We have become so engaged with tales of childhood
eroticism (molestation, incest, abduction, pornography) that
we have come to take for granted the irrepressible allure of
children. 45

Abstinence advocates, while denouncing this process, heavily participate in

this eroticisation of “children”/ “teenagers” as irrepressibly alluring to
predators. This is the case of the Bush administration in the president’s
Record of Achievement as mentioned further above, as well as of Hagelin and
the LaHayes.
Hagelin devotes a section of her book to the porn industry and the
internet. 46 She starts by stating that “our culture” is

obsessed with sex. Sexual images are everywhere. And

they aren’t just of men and women having sex. There are
adults with kids, kids with kids, group sex, sex with
animals - anything goes. 47

She goes on explaining that the porn industry, including child pornography,
is flourishing, resulting in growing numbers of porn addictions, themselves
leading to growing rates of divorces, rape and child molestation. 48 Finally,
she warns parents that this danger is threatening their home in the shape of
the internet. She argues that children are routinely exposed to pornographic
content on the web and are at increased risk of being lured and abducted by
pedophiles through chat rooms and instant messaging. 49
The LaHayes warn parents of similar, and other, dangers in a whole
chapter entitled “Protect Your Children From Sexual Abuse.” 50 molesters
they describe are: Catholic priests; day care providers - adding that these
might be involved in an “organized operation of child predators” involved in
producing child pornography and selling children; 51 - porn addicts; grown-up
victims of past molestations; etc. The LaHayes acknowledge the importance
of incest, though pointing out that it is aggravated by the “breakdown of the
family” and the “delaying of marriage” which leave too many men single. 52
 Claire Greslé-Favier 229
______________________________________________________________
Finally, though they refrain from arguing it in this chapter, they warn parents
earlier on that many homosexuals are “created” by older males luring
children and teens into homosexuality. 53
Through such descriptions, the Bush administration, Hagelin and the
LaHayes present “innocent children” and “teens” as potential victims of a
host of predators of various hues insisting on the necessity of “adult”
protection. This device enables abstinence proponents to reassert the sexual
“innocence” of children and consequently to emphasise the boundaries
between children and adults.
Paradoxically, the third means of eroticising teens used by
abstinence discourses is to present them, boys in particular, as highly sexual
creatures ruled by “raging hormones” and in need of parental control.
Throughout pro-abstinence discourses teens are described as in need of strict
“dating guidelines” and supervision. 4Parents.gov, the LaHayes and Meeker
keep telling parents to monitor what their children read, watch and listen to,
to prevent them from being sexually aroused. They also promote a vision of
teens as out of control of their sexual urges to such an extent that couples
cannot be left without supervision. Sex-education is also presented as easily
igniting their sexual drives. Hagelin explains that she is

amazed at the naivete of those who believe that teen boys

actually have the ability to listen to detailed discussions of
condom usage and sexual activities in one class, and then
concentrate on equally exciting topics, as say, algebra or
chemistry, the next. 54

For her this is impossible, especially since “teenagers’ bodies are raging with
hormones” 55 or, in Meeker’s words, since boys have to cope with
“tremendous sexual urges.” 56 Though all these authors acknowledge female
sexual drives, they always describe male ones as being significantly stronger.
The LaHayes also depict teenage sexuality as easily getting to a
point where there is no going back. According to the “law of progression”
they describe in their book, teenage sexual drives are so out of control that
anything beyond holding hands and light kissing will inevitably lead to
intercourse. 57 Consequently, teenagers are considered to require constant
surveillance and dating guidelines from their parents to help them subdue
their uncontrollable sex drives.
Through these different and sometimes contradicting manners of
eroticising children and teens, various agendas of abstinence are
systematically reasserted. This eroticisation highlights the need to “purify” an
oversexualised society that ignites teenagers’ uncontrollable sexual drives
and threatens the sexual “innocence” of “children” by exciting molesters of
all kind. The apparent contradiction in the combination of the innocent child
230 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________
with the hypersexual teenager is negotiated through the emphasis on the
sudden nature of the hormonal changes of adolescence and through the
intermediate image of the teenage girl, who because she is not as sexual as
her male counterpart can remain suitably “innocent” and vulnerable.
Valerie Daoust notes that youth has long been associated with
beauty and sexuality. In spite of the fact that most youths are highly
dependent on adults, youth is seen as a time of sexual freedom and
experimentation before the inscription of the sexual self in the productive
pattern of monogamous heterosexuality. The idea that youths have a more
“liberated” sexual life than their parents is reinforced by the apparent
liberalization of sexuality in the past four decades. Envied and desired,
youths are seen by the older generation as a menace to the status quo and thus
to require control and education to be integrated in the preexisting social
structure. 58 To come to terms with the menace constituted by youths, adults
can choose to objectify them sexually in a symbolic attempt to reassert their
domination.
Following the suggestion by Gargi Bhattacharyya that children, like
third-world inhabitants, can be a support of erotic “exoticisation” 59 , I argue in
the following paragraphs that pro-abstinence discourses “exoticise” children
and teens in order to solidify boundaries between childhood and adulthood.
For Bhattacharyya exoticisation is above all a question of “power
disparity.” She explains that learning

the more worldly pleasure of the body requires recognition

that social equity may not feel sexy. […P]ower relations
can be solidified for erotic ends. When the world around us
seems to be changing so rapidly, the erotic fantasy of an
absolute object can provide consolation for other
uncertainties. 60

Children can easily constitute such an “absolute object” since their “lack of
social status and power renders them vulnerable to becoming other, as if
childhood is a race apart from humanity.” 61 Through highly sexualised
stories, narratives of abuse, and the definition of the teen as dominated by
“raging hormones,” pro-abstinence discourses eroticize and, I argue,
“exoticise” children and teenagers by denying them sexual agency while
constituting them as sexual objects. In so doing, they reassert the domination
of adults over minors. For Bhattacharyya, “relegating children to the role of
absolute and vulnerable may reassure anxious adults that they are, in fact, in
control.” 62
It can also be argued that teenagers are not the only “objects”
exoticised by pro-abstinence discourses. In its focalisation on out-of-wedlock
births, and thus implicitly on black teenage mothers and the poor, pro-
 Claire Greslé-Favier 231
______________________________________________________________
abstinence discourses can also be considered to resort to a traditional form of
exoticisation in the United States, the exoticisation of the black African-
American body as well as the exoticisation of the “underclass.” Thus it can
be argued that pro-abstinence discourses use sexual objectification not only
to reassert the boundaries between children and adults, but also between races
and classes.
Through this double device of exoticisation and eroticisation pro-
abstinence discourses reassert the unique role that can supposedly be fulfilled
by abstinence education in maintaining teen sexuality within ordained
borders and de-sexualising contemporary culture, while strengthening
adult/child hierarchies through the sexual objectification of children and
teens.
Through contemporary US pro-abstinence discourses, teenager’s
sexuality is being used to pursue wider political and moral goals with which
it often has little to do itself. The Bush administration and conservative
Christians used, and still use the emotionally charged association of children
and sexuality to achieve, on the one hand political dominance and on the
other hand to ensure its survival as a social movement. In conjunction with
these two major functions, pro-abstinence discourses enabled both groups to
maintain teenagers inside the hierarchically inferior category of “children” in
order to maintain traditional family structures while investing teens with the
symbolic weight of the nation’s sexual morality. Thus, US teens are
objectified, denied sexual legitimacy and agency as well as citizenship like
Atwood’s fictional handmaid.
Such a conclusion should raise a number of ethical concerns: When
does parental authority become abusive? What kind of citizenship are
children, teens and other minorities entitled to? Does the high degree of
significance that our society has invested in sexuality have the potential to
blind us to more important social concerns? Should we seek to go beyond a
regime of emotional politics? When does the blurring of boundaries between
religious and political discourse become problematic in a supposedly secular
state?

Notes
1
M Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale, Anchor Books, New York, (1986) 1998,
p.65.
2
For a more extensive sociological approach to this question see also: J
Fields and C Hirschman, ‘Citizenship Lessons in Abstinence-Only Sexuality
Education,’ American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2007, 2(2), pp.3-25.
3
S Seidman, Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian
Life, Routledge, New York and London, 2002, p.189.
232 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________

4
ibid., p.189.
5
ibid., p.17.
6
ibid., p.203.
7
ibid., p.203.
8
ibid., p.204.
9
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
10
J Bell, ‘Understanding Adultism,’ 1995, 15 February 2007,
<http://www.youthbuild.org/atf/cf/%7B22B5F680-2AF9-4ED2-B948-
40C4B32E6198%7D/Bell_UnderstandingAdultism.pdf>, p.1.
11
Lesko, 2001, p.123.
12
ibid., p.129.
13
ibid., p.140.
14
ibid., p.138.
15
Rubin, 1984, p.290.
16
R Schleifer, Ignorance Only HIV/AIDS, Human Rights and Federally
Funded Abstinence-Only Programs in the United States, September 2002, 14
(5) (G), viewed on March 16 2009,
<http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000
019b/80/1a/a5/5a.pdf>, p.46.
17
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a, p.4.
18
R Hagelin, ‘America’s Little Girls ... or Tramps?,’ 4 March 2005c, viewed
on 15 February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed030405a.cfm>
19
Seidman, 2002, p.189.
20
Fields, 2004, p.18.
21
LaHaye, 1998a, p.163.
22
The question of the absence of teenage, especially female, desire in sex-
education has been studied in a very enlightening way since the 1980s by
researchers like psychologist Michelle Fine and sexuality specialist Deborah
Tolman, among others. See: M Fine, ‘Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent
Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire,’ Harvard Educational Review,
1998, 58, pp.29-53, and Tolman, 2002.
23
D L Tolman and T E Higgins, ‘How Being a Good Girl Can Be Bad for
Girls,’ in N. Bauer Maglin and D. Perry (eds), “Bad Girls”/“Good Girls”:
Women, Sex and Power in the Nineties, Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, 1996.
24
Hendershot, 2004, p.93.
25
LaHaye, 1998a, p.163.
26
Hendershot, 2004, p.93.
27
Pillow, 2004, p.181.
28
ibid., pp.181-183.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 233
______________________________________________________________

29
Fields, 2004, p.15.
30
in Meeker, 1999, p.IX.
31
Levine, 2002, p.126.
32
ibid., p.28.
33
ibid., p.28.
34
Kincaid, 1998; Levine, 2002.
35
Foucault, 1991, p.324.
36
Fields and Hirschman, 2007, p.11.
37
Transcript available at:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/etc/script.html>,
viewed on 16 March 2009.
38
Meeker, 2002, p.143, emphasis in the original.
39
R D Goodman and B Goodman (dir), The Lost Children of Rockdale
County, 1999.
40
Oprah.com, ‘The Lost Children of Rockdale County,’ 7 February 2000,
viewed on 21 February 2007,
<http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000207.jht
ml>
41
quoted in Hagelin, 2005b, p.33.
42
MSNBC.com, ‘Nearly 3 in 10 Young Teens ‘Sexually Active,’’ MSNBC
News, 31 January 2005, viewed on 21 February 2007,
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839072/>
43
ibid..
44
Levine, 2002, pp.XXIV-XXV.
45
Kincaid, 1998, p.13.
46
Hagelin, 2005b, pp.36-44.
47
ibid., p.36.
48
ibid., pp.38-41.
49
ibid., p.42.
50
LaHaye, 1998a, pp.193-202.
51
ibid., p.195.
52
ibid., p.193-194.
53
ibid., p.108.
54
R Hagelin, ‘Teens Can Be Responsible,’ 28 April 2004a, viewed on 22
February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042804a.cfm>
55
ibid..
56
Meeker, 2002, p.178.
57
LaHaye, 1998a, pp.46-47.
58
Daoust, 2005, pp.135-144.
59
Bhattacharyya, 2002, pp.115-116.
234 A Common Goal: Reinforcing Traditional Hierarchies
______________________________________________________________

60
ibid., p.102.
61
ibid., p.116.
62
ibid., p.116.
 Conclusion

When, at the beginning of this decade, I became familiar with the

issue of premarital sexual abstinence in the context of the United States, my
first reaction to the degree of political support it enjoyed was one of
puzzlement. Why were middle-aged Congressmen and politicians, who had
most likely experienced the sexual freedom of the 1960s and 1970s,
promoting such apparently “reactionary” policies? Why were they so
concerned with the sex lives of young people when one would expect them to
be involved in more “political” issues? At the end of the 20th century and
beginning of the 21st century, the idea of abstinence before marriage seemed
absurd, unrealistic and even somewhat laughable. I could hardly imagine
notoriously unfaithful French presidents defending such ideas and after the
“Monicagate” and other sexual scandals, American politicians did not seem
to be very credible on the issue either.
Certainly, the link with the Christian Right appeared as a motivation
for the promotion of abstinence education, yet this answer was not wholly
satisfying and deserved, in my view, more in-depth analysis. Why was
premarital abstinence coming back, apparently so unexpectedly? What
purpose did it serve, in particular for politicians who were unlikely to be
moved by a genuine belief in chastity and Christianity? What was this
support hiding?
This book has been an attempt to answer these questions and the
many others that arose during my research. In the course of this study I
became convinced that abstinence before marriage was not, as some scholars
and observers have suggested, a “trivial” issue but that it carried important
cultural messages about contemporary US society. Through the analysis of
pro-abstinence discourses, this study underlined a number of major points.
Abstinence is an issue which coalesces most of the major
conservative Christian agendas. Consequently, pro-abstinence discourses are
a privileged vehicle for promoting a conservative Christian worldview.
Moreover, abstinence discourses are instrumental in supporting and
reinforcing a conservative vision of society based on a network of hierarchic
relationships that place certain individuals, practices and values above others.
These main relations of domination involve: the domination of men over
women and, within the family, of fathers over their wives and children; the
domination of adults, especially parents, over children; the moral and social
superiority of chaste individuals over promiscuous ones and of traditional
heterosexual marriage over cohabitation; the emotional and moral superiority
of marital sexuality and marital love over other types of sexual and emotional
relationships; the moral inferiority of the “underclass” and finally the
superiority of the “traditional American values” of work, family and religious
worship over the “liberal” values of the post-1960s era.
236 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
The promotion of these hierarchies constitutes the overt “text” of
pro-abstinence discourses, but these also include a “subtext” which
significantly varies depending on the type of pro-abstinence author involved.
For conservative Christians, pro-abstinence discourses reinforce both the
sense of being in the middle of a culture war and the menace facing young
people’s moral and physical health. This sense of permanent crisis
contributes to the maintenance of the commitment of conservative Christians
to the defense of traditional values and to political activism and lobbying.
For the Bush administration, pro-abstinence discourses, and the
epidemics they contributed to, helped maintain the status quo along with
traditional lines of hierarchy. Voters, made anxious by the threat of
epidemics and moral panics of all kinds, vote for conservative candidates
who offer to bring them back from post-modern chaos to a reassuringly
familiar system of traditional values and moral absolutes.
Pro-abstinence discourses also raise important ethical concerns
regarding the citizenship and human rights of children and the
disenfranchisement of teens and other minorities.

1. The Future of Federally-Funded Abstinence Education in the

United States
Government funding of abstinence education programmes
flourished during the Bush presidency. However, it is currently under
reconsideration with the election of President Barack Obama in November
2009 and previously of a Democratic majority in Congress, as well as to the
lack of empirical results of this approach in reducing teen pregnancy and
STD rates. Moreover, significant objections have been repeatedly raised by
scientists and Congress committees on the scientific reliability of many
government-funded abstinence-only programmes. In November 2006, a
report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered

a near total absence of oversight to ensure that funded

abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes are not
providing medically inaccurate information. In fact,
according to the report, the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), the division of HHS responsible for the
vast majority of the programmes, admitted that no such
oversight is in place. This absence of accountability follows
almost two years after a report from Congressman Henry
Waxman (D-CA) found that more than two thirds of the
curricula most commonly used in federally funded
abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes contained
serious medical inaccuracies, including misinformation
about HIV, other STDs, and the effectiveness of condoms.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 237
______________________________________________________________
To date, HHS has made no changes to the reviewed
programmes and, despite the evidence, denies that any
problems with the curricula exist. 1

Interestingly enough in April 2007, Wade Horn, former president of

the National Fatherhood Initiative, resigned from his job as Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, where he oversaw abstinence funding, to
join a consulting firm. The prospect of having to account for the money
distributed to inaccurate and inefficient abstinence programmes is likely to
have prompted this resignation.
Since 2005, an increasing number of states have began to refuse
federal money for abstinence-only programmes; this trend accelerated after
the extension of the requirements of CBAE funding to include an even
stricter definition of abstinence-only education in October 2006. 2
In May 2007 Democratic leaders announced that they would let the
$50 million grant for Title V funding expire in June 2007, since the program
had proven ineffective. Representative John Dingell, chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, even asserted that “abstinence-only
seems to be a colossal failure.” 3 However, the funding was renewed and
later, in July 2008, title V was officially reauthorized for a 12-month
extension and received “$50 million in federal funds for Fiscal Year 2009.”
The current authorization will expire on June 30, 2009. Overall, for “Fiscal
Year 2008, the federal government ha[d] allocated $176 million through
three separate funding streams for abstinence-only-until-marriage
programmes.” 4
The demise of Title V would have implied that the definition of
abstinence according to “A-H”, on which all abstinence funding is based,
would disappear from the US law. This is very concerning for abstinence
advocates who argue that

“A-H really defines what abstinence education is in terms

of federal funding, and it is that criteria that says abstinence
until marriage is what should be taught with the use of
these monies,” Huber said. “And so if we lose Title V, that
language dies with Title V. So [with] the other abstinence
education funding streams, even if they were continued, it’s
going to be really difficult for that discussion.” 5

As a response to these attacks on abstinence, a report on

comprehensive sex-education programmes, requested by Republican senators
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was released
on June 14, 2007. The report, fashioned as a systematic answer to the one by
Waxman, concluded that while the comprehensive sex-education
238 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
programmes surveyed had some positive results in delaying the initiation of
first intercourse and on condom use, they did not emphasise abstinence
enough and did not stress the failure rate of condoms sufficiently. The report
also underlined that some curricula contained scientifically inaccurate
information. 6 This last point was a direct answer to the Waxman report
which emphasised that

over two-thirds of abstinence-only education programmes

funded by the largest federal abstinence initiative are using
curricula with multiple scientific and medical inaccuracies.
These curricula contain misinformation about condoms,
abortion, and basic scientific facts. 7

Abstinence-only proponents gave a lot of importance to the findings

of the Coburn-Santorum report. Yet when compared with the Waxman
report, it appeared to make a significantly weaker case. For example, it
concluded that

although medical accuracy of comprehensive sex education

curricula is nearly 100% - similar to that of abstinence-
until-marriage curricula - efforts could be made to more
extensively detail condom failure rate in context. 8

The report failed to find major medical inaccuracies in

comprehensive sex-education programmes, but appeared to be itself
inaccurate in stating that abstinence-only curricula have a medical accuracy
of nearly 100% since the Waxman report underlined that “eleven of the
thirteen curricula most commonly used by SPRANS programmes contain
major errors and distortions of public health information.” 9 Moreover, while
the Santorum-Coburn report acknowledged, though mitigating them, the
positive results of comprehensive sex-education programmes in delaying
sexual activity and encouraging condom use, it failed to underline that
abstinence-only programmes have not been proven to achieve that much.
In addition to opposing abstinence-only at home, the Democratic
Congress also questioned funding for abstinence programmes abroad as an
AIDS prevention strategy. In early July 2007 the House of Representative
struck down an amendment to reinstate funding for the promotion of
abstinence in Africa. In doing so they challenged the White House, which
warned that President Bush would veto any law suppressing abstinence
funding. 10
This unwavering commitment of the Bush administration to
abstinence was further reinforced on June 21, 2007, when the Department of
Health and Human Services launched a new campaign to encourage parents
 Claire Greslé-Favier 239
______________________________________________________________
to “to talk to their pre-teen and teenage children about waiting to have sex”
and updating its pro-abstinence website 4parents.gov. 11
Underlining the opposition of the Democratic Congress to
abstinence-only programmes, the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with Henry Waxman at
its head, held on April 23, 2008, a first and very critical hearing on the
“effectiveness of federally-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage
programmes.” 12
This opposition is now gaining momentum with the beginning of
Barack Obama’s presidency. Counteracting the stance of the previous
administration on reproductive rights, one of Obama’s first decisions was to
overturn the Mexico City Policy, commonly called the “Global Gag Rule”
which had been reinstated by president Bush. 13 As previously mentioned, this
rule stated, that “taxpayer funds should not be provided to organisations that
pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either in the
United States or abroad.” 14
On March 11, President Obama signed the first-ever cut in the
funding of abstinence-only-before-marriage programmes 15 , while on March
17 the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act was introduced in
Congress. This act, of which President Obama was a cosponsor when he was
Senator, would

create a dedicated funding stream administered by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services to provide
states with money for comprehensive sexuality education
that is age-appropriate, medically accurate, and stresses
abstinence while also educating young people about
contraception. 16

President Obama also dissociated himself from the Bush

administration’s support of conservative Christian agendas by “removing
barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells” 17 and
demanding more “scientific integrity” in the “scientific process informing
public policy decisions.” 18
It is likely that these decisions, taken very early in his presidency are
only a start and that funding for abstinence-only programmes will
progressively be dismantled.
However, if abstinence-only education is not federally funded
anymore, the future of abstinence-plus is not necessarily at stake. As noted
previously, abstinence, when it is coupled with information on contraception
and abortion, is still considered by most American parents the most
appropriate form of sex education. Considering this and the lack of support
for “permissive” sexual ideology in the United States, it is unlikely that the
240 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
Obama presidency will significantly alter the support to abstinence or
inaugurate a switch to western European types of sex-education.

2. Abstinence as a US Phenomenon?
A brief overview of premarital abstinence in the occidental world
seems to underline the religious dimension of this choice. Sexual abstinence
has been a tendency among gays as a response to AIDS or among individuals
who consider themselves as “asexual,” but those cases are very different from
premarital abstinence. They are motivated either by health reasons or by a
lack of sexual drive and therefore entail a completely different relationship to
desire, temptation and sexual “legitimacy.”
Premarital sexual abstinence, on the contrary, is usually, when it is
part of a group movement, motivated by religious beliefs. In Europe for
example it is often inspired by US evangelical groups like the French,
German or Belgian 19 versions of the US abstinence program True Love
Waits of the Southern Baptist Convention.
While in some countries the Catholic Church is very insistent on
premarital abstinence, the website of the French Catholic church, for
instance, barely mentions the issue and does not make a central agenda of it.
Overall, in Western Europe, abstinence appears to be a non-issue on the
public scene even for Catholics, and is not considered a sensible public health
approach. It is even the object of jokes like the Spanish parody MTV
campaign “Amo a Laura: pero esperare hasta el matrimonio” 20 where the
channel pretended to support abstinence through a music video featuring a
band jokingly called “Los Happiness” 21 in order to ridicule conservative pro-
family movements. While some US abstinence groups like the Silver Ring
Thing and True Love Waits have developed abroad, they do not reach a wide
audience.
Even in a traditionally Catholic Latin-American country like Brazil,
abstinence is not supported by the state as sound public health policy. The
call of Benedict XVI to Brazilian youths to abstain has been received
negatively by the country’s officials and parts of the Catholic community;
their major argument being that abstinence-only is a dangerous stand in the
time of AIDS. 22 While its Catechism clearly highlights the imperative of
premarital chastity, the Catholic Church seems to be less successful than
Protestant denominations in promoting abstinence among its members, at
least in the occidental world. This might be due on the one hand to the less
“passionate” and personal relationship of Catholics to their faith and God,
and on the other hand to the evolution of religious practices towards a more
“pick and choose” attitude, even among the Catholic clergy. This tendency is
illustrated by the widespread opposition of many Catholic priests to the
prohibition of condom use and the large number of churchmen cohabitating
with a sexual partner. One could argue that while prohibitions in the Catholic
 Claire Greslé-Favier 241
______________________________________________________________
tradition can be negotiated through the confessional and the relationship to
the priest, they are, in the US Protestant tradition, more deeply internalised
and mediated through a direct relationship to God, making requirements like
abstinence more urgent to respect.
However, many abstinence programmes funded by the federal
government in the US were created by Catholics. While it can be argued that
this is due to the more conservative nature of American Catholicism, it also
suggests that it might not only be religion but also the particular cultural
context of the United States which provides a favorable terrain for the
promotion of premarital sexual abstinence, making it a uniquely North
American phenomenon.
This can be explained first by the particular nature of the sex
education debate in the U.S. and the part played in it by conservative
Christian lobbies. As explained in Chapter 1, conservative Christians
developed through abstinence-only education programmes a unique response
to the liberalisation of sex-education. This response found support in the
Reagan administration and within congress, and in the past twenty years was
consistently supported by the federal government. US political culture thus
offered a unique environment in which the fluidity between church and state
was sufficient for abstinence-only to flourish with governmental subsidies.
This particular political context was also strengthened by a culture
which conjugates an important pornographic industry and with a strong
censorship of sexual content and little support for a truly “permissive” sexual
ideology. The roots of this ambiguous relationship to representations of
sexuality are complex, however, in the past three decades this attitude has
been strengthened by two major groups. Levine explains that on one side

were feminists whose movements exposed widespread rape

and domestic sexual violence against women and children
and initiated a new body of law that would punish the
perpetrator and cease to blame the victim. From the other
side, the religious Right brought to sexual politics the belief
that women and children need special protection because
they are “naturally” averse to sex of any kind. 23

This particular association intensified the anxiety over children and female
sexuality thus favoring the development of abstinence as a desirable response
to the potentially negative consequences of early sexual activity like teen
pregnancy, STDs and emotional hurt. In addition to this, what Radford
Ruether describes as the particular lack of “a critical education on economic
and class structures” 24 of the US population enables lobbies and politicians to
privilege “moral” solutions to problems that are inherently economic and
social ones and are treated as such in other western countries. This tendency
242 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
is reinforced and promoted through American religious and cultural
narratives like the narrative of success, or the American dream, as well as the
Puritan narrative and the concept of “traditional American values,” which as
Radford Ruether points out, defines

wealth and poverty primarily in individualistic and

moralistic terms, as a matter of hard work and personal
discipline versus laziness and the wrongful expectations of
“getting something for nothing.” 25

This particular political and cultural context suggests that in contemporary

western societies the promotion of sexual abstinence-only by both
conservative Christian groups and the government, as well as the support of
the population to abstinence, constitutes a uniquely US phenomenon.
However, abstinence is still supported as a socio-cultural
requirement, especially for women, in many non-occidental cultures as well
as in the more eastern parts of Europe. In this regard the more conservative
sexual stance of the US cannot be seen only as representing a minor cultural
tendency but might illustrate a more global norm than the more sexually
liberal stance of European countries. Yet the spread of AIDS has had a
tremendous effect on sexual health policies globally in the past decades and
while in many countries abstinence might still be considered a desirable
norm, pragmatism has led many states to distribute condoms and spread
information regarding sexual health.

3. Abstinence, Identity and Empowerment.

Having stressed the more “oppressive” nature of pro-abstinence
discourses for teenagers, I would like to conclude this book by considering,
independently from abstinence advocacy and conservative Christian agendas,
the potentially empowering dimension of abstinence as a personal choice.
Indeed, it seems to me important to consider that teenagers are not only
passive “victims” of a conservative agenda that is forced upon them, but can
deliberately choose abstinence as a way to assert their sexual agency.
In Invented Morality: Sexual Values in an Age of Uncertainty,
Jeffrey Weeks argues that it is specifically due to its links with “structures of
domination and subordination” that sexuality has been at the center of
struggles for the definition of self and identity. He adds that sexuality, in
Foucault’s view, might be a historical construct “but it remains also a key site
for the construction of personal meaning and social location.” 26 It is therefore
interesting to envisage sexual abstinence as an important “constituent of
identity” 27 as sociologist Jamie L. Mullaney has done in her study of various
types of abstinence: Everyone is NOT Doing It.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 243
______________________________________________________________
In her book, Mullaney argues that the things you choose “not to do”
define you as much as the things you do. She cites the example of the early
days of sexual education when sexual abstinence was used as a way to
differentiate the “civilised” and self-controlled middle-class from the more
“savage” and “loose” lower classes. 28
Referring to sociologist Mary C. Waters, Mullaney argues that in an
American culture which constantly emphasises the need for individuals to
have “something they can identify with,” 29 abstinence can provide a
“relatively cost-free means to the end of gaining some control over the
self.” 30 To make the decision to abstain from a widespread practice is a
deeply personal choice, a way to define oneself as deliberately different from
the majority and therefore as a free agent in a world that constructs the
practice one abstains from as normative. Abstinence, from sex or any other
activity (driving, watching TV, using the internet) or product of consumption
(alcohol, meat, cell phones), is also associated with various values and
connotations in a particular context. Abstinence from alcohol, in the
temperance movement, was seen as a sign of self-control and industry. 31
Vegetarianism is often associated with a particular respect for animal life
plus a capacity for self-restraint. As for sexual abstinence, as seen throughout
Chapter II, it is usually associated with religion but also, independently from
that, valued by conservatives as a sign of self-control, good sense and
foresight. Moreover, contrary to other forms of identification, like belonging
to the middle-class, or high performance in a given task (athlete, scholar,
artist), many types of abstinence are relatively accessible, as remarked by
Mullaney, since they do not require any significant financial or time
investment and can be within the reach of everyone, regardless of their social
background, intellectual or physical capacities. Hence, sexual abstinence can
appear as an attractive identity statement for teens, since it is available to all
of them, can be performed without parental support or intervention, and
asserts to a certain degree their independence from a normative culture.
This last point underlines one of the limits of abstinence-only
education as a potential contributor to identity construction, since to be
efficient in this regard abstinence has to remain a minority choice. Mullaney
remarks that

[c]urrent efforts to enforce strict abstinence-only

programmes […] may benefit from allowing for a more
flexible interpretation of what it means to abstain. In their
study of virginity pledges, Bearman and Bruckner 32 found
that pledging only works in moderation in that pledges
succeed precisely when everyone is not pledging. In short,
the somewhat nonnormative character of pledging leads to
its effectiveness. 33
244 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
But the ideological context in which abstinence-only programmes
are promoted is in complete contradiction with the possibility of allowing for
more flexibility, since their very aim is to establish abstinence as a normative
practice promoted by parental authority. Consequently, it seems unlikely that
sexual abstinence can become a support of identity construction in the
context of mandatory school curricula. It might even prompt the opposite
reaction of making the practice of sexual activity a minority behavior that
constitutes an identity statement.
While sexual abstinence might be more conducive to identity
definition by remaining marginal, it can also, in certain communities like
those of conservative Christians, be invested with other positive characters
that might contribute to Christian teenagers’ self-construction. In her study of
conservative evangelical media, Heather Hendershot gives some clues as to
how this might be the case. She argues that for evangelical teenagers sexual
abstinence can be a “potent symbol of their commitment to God.” 34 By
choosing to postpone sexual activity until marriage, Christian teens affirm the
importance of religion in their lives in an autonomous manner and inscribe
themselves in a religious tradition that can provide them with a powerful
sense of belonging. For Hendershot, it is crucial not to overlook the fact that
being part of a religious community that provides them with a clear “rule
book” (the Bible) can provide teens with a reassuring sense of stability and
order.

Given the tortuous isolation and feelings of helplessness

and despair that many teenagers endure, it is not difficult to
see why an ordered belief system and a community of
fellow believers would be appealing. The evangelical
system, which to outsiders may seem to be all rules and
prohibition, offers structure, stability, and community to
youths. 35

Besides, she underscores, it would be unfair to evangelical teens to assume

that they follow the abstinence requirement and the evangelical “way of life”
blindly, without ever questioning it. She quotes examples where teenagers try
to find loopholes and contradictions in the “Biblical chastity mandate” 36 in
order to negotiate how far they can go within the boundaries of abstinence.
An argument recurrently mentioned by abstinence proponents is the
fact that postponing sexual activity helps protect teens from its potentially
negative consequences, like teen pregnancy, STDs or abusive relationships.
However, some of these consequences have a completely different impact
depending on the age and maturity level of the person involved. Becoming
pregnant at thirteen is not the same as becoming pregnant at nineteen, and
while younger teens might benefit from being encouraged to abstain, it might
 Claire Greslé-Favier 245
______________________________________________________________
be more constructive to emphasise that with their level of maturity
increasing, teens, like adults, can develop responsible emotional and sexual
relationships.
In the case of teenage girls, postponing sexual activity can also be
considered as particularly empowering. As explained by authors like Joan
Jacobs Brumberg and Mary Pipher, adolescent girls are today at higher risks
than they were forty years ago. In a highly sexualised culture, which defines
unreal beauty standards as the norm and promotes consumption as the core of
one’s identity. teenagers, and particularly girls, are manipulated to boost
sales. Such statements echo very interestingly the concerns of Hagelin and
Meeker. This similarity is particularly interesting when comparing Meeker’s
books and Pipher’s famous Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of
Adolescent Girls (1994). The personal tone and medical experience of Pipher
as a psychologist, her use of personal stories of teens around which she
structures her writing, as well as the arguments she uses suggest that Meeker,
who wrote her books several years later, might have been influenced by
Reviving Ophelia. In a way, Meeker’s books can be described as
“conservative Christian” and less scientifically grounded versions of Pipher’s
work.
At puberty (which they now reach at an ever-younger age), girls
have to face important bodily changes. They are propelled into a world
which, as Pipher claims, breaks their childhood self-confidence by urging
them to focus almost exclusively on their outward appearance and its faults,
rather than on their unique personalities and qualities. Brumberg and Pipher
both argue that girls are pressured by the “culture” and their peers to invest
themselves in the “project” of modeling their adolescent body, with its fat
and acne, into the unattainable image of digitally-altered top models. While
keeping them eternally dissatisfied, this project also focuses them, sometimes
almost exclusively, on their image, making them easy targets for publicity
and endangering their health dramatically, as in the case of eating disorders.
At school, in the streets, and even sometimes at home, they also face
the sexism of a culture in which women are increasingly defined as sexual
objects, are victims of sexual assaults in ever higher numbers and are
devalued as members of society. Girls are pressured into becoming sexual to
fit in, to look sexy even if they are not yet aware of their own sexual desires.
Moreover, as has been underlined several times throughout this book, their
desire and sexual agency is often negated, to be replaced by the traditional
sexual ideology of female sexual passivity and male sexual need. This sexual
pressure, as well as the pressure to control their physical appearance,
endangers their self-confidence, pushing them to seek appreciation and
recognition where they can. Pipher explains that since contemporary culture
and our view of adolescence tend to push teenagers away from their parents,
this recognition is most of the time sought in peers and boyfriends, often
246 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________
putting girls at even greater risk. As underlined by film studies Professor
Kathryn Rowe Karlyn in an article devoted to the representation of girls in
teen movies,

[t]he enduring cultural myths of heterosexual romance […]

highly popular among young women, perpetuate female
fantasies of Prince Charming boyfriends who will rescue
them. [However] recent work on female adolescence such
as Carol Gilligan’s […] explores how coming of age into
heterosexual adulthood “kills off” young girls’ confidence
and strength and suggests how for girls the boyfriend (or
desire for a boyfriend) is a killer. 37

The socio-cultural injunction to fulfill heterosexual romantic narratives often

leads teenage girls to focus on the search for a boyfriend and, once one is
found, to invest themselves overwhelmingly in the relationship rather than in
curricular and extra-curricular activities beneficent to their own self-
development. The lack of self-confidence created by the “body project”
described by Brumberg, sexual pressure, as well as the devaluation of girl’s
academic achievements often leads them to look for reassurance in sexual
activity and weakens their ability to make responsible and healthy choices for
themselves.
Considering this, encouraging girls to postpone sexual activity for
most of their teen years might be a way to empower them and relieve them
from the pressure of heteronormativity. Telling girls that being sexual, either
in act or in appearance, is not indispensable to the construction of their
identity might relieve the pressure they feel to fashion their bodies in order to
be sexually attractive and might enable them to focus on other projects, thus
helping them to develop a more positive self-image and more agency.
Likewise, abstinence may also contribute to empowering boys. In a
world where social status for men is often equated in the media with sexual
performance and seduction, and where boys and men are being told that they
are dominated by their sexual drives, sending the message that men do not
have to be sexually active to be worthy individuals may also be considered
empowering. In this regard, conservative Christian abstinence discourses and
the emphasis they lay on the urgency of the male sex drive might actually
disempower boys more than the contrary.
However, in these cases, in order for abstinence to be empowering,
it would have to be not so much centred on avoiding sexual activity at all
costs, but on understanding that at any stage of life, abstaining from sexual
activity, temporarily or not, might relieve the individual from the forms of
social pressure associated with sex and enable her/him to focus on other
goals.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 247
______________________________________________________________
Abstinence, when it is a deliberate and free choice, can provide teens
with a significant sense of agency, control, religious commitment and
sometimes of belonging to a religious community. Therefore, it would be a
mistake to argue that abstinence has no place at all in the sexual education of
teenagers. I think that it is important to consider the potentially empowering
message of sexual abstinence for the population at large in a western
civilization increasingly characterized by a “devoir jouir” (duty of sexual
enjoyment). 38 Psychoanalysts, sex therapists, and the media have come to
define sexual fulfilment through highly developed sexual techniques as the
sine qua non condition to happiness, thus leaving many individuals, who
either do not have access to sex or might not consider themselves as
achieving such standards, feeling disempowered and frustrated. 39 In such a
cultural context, temporary or even lifelong sexual abstinence can provide a
non-negligible release from this pressure and relevantly question the way we
have placed sexuality at the center of our lives and identities.

Notes
1
SIECUS, ‘A New Congress Should Enforce Accountability Over
Abstinence-Only Programmes,’ 16 November 2006c, viewed on 29 May
2007, <http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0136.html>
2
Huffstutter, 2007.
3
K Freking, ‘Funding for Abstinence Likely to Drop,’ WashingtonPost.com,
16 May 2007, viewed on 29 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602298.html>
4
SIECUS, ‘A Brief History of Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Funding,’ 2008, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=670
&grandparentID=478&parentID=487>
5
E Roach, ‘What if abstinence legislation expires?,’ Baptist Press, 22 May
2007, viewed on 4 July 2007,
<http://www.sbcbaptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=25699>
6
C Wetzstein, ‘Study: More ‘condoms’ than ‘abstinence’ in sex-ed,’ The
Washington Times, 14 June 2007b, viewed on 24 June 2007,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/N
ATION/106140075&SearchID=73285126621455>
7
Waxman, 2004, p.22.
8
T Coburn and R Santorum (prepared for), Review of Comprehensive Sex
Education Curricula, 12 June 2007, viewed on 5 July 2007, <
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programmes/fysb/content/abstinence/06122007-
153424.PDF >, p.9.
248 Conclusion
______________________________________________________________

9
Waxman, 2004, p.7.
10
J Thurman, ‘House rejects Africa AIDS/abstinence aid,’ The Baptist Press,
2 July 2007, viewed on 4 July 2007, <
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=26002>
11
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Families, 2007.
12
SIECUS, ‘Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Holds First-
Ever Hearings on Abstinence Only Until Marriage Programmes,’ April 2008,
viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1144&pageid=483&parentid=478>
13
White House, ‘Memorandum: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for
Voluntary Population Planning,’ 23 January 2009, viewed on 28 March 2009,
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-
VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/>
14
White House, 2004, p.38.
15
SIECUS, ‘First Ever Cuts to Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Programmes,’ 11 March 2009, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1615&pageid=611&parentid=479>
16
SIECUS, ‘SIECUS Applauds the Introduction of the Responsible
Education About Life (REAL) Act,’ 17 March 2009, viewed on 28 March
2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1650&pageid=611&parentid=479>
17
White House, ‘Executive Order: Removing Barriers to Responsible
Scientific research Involving Human Stem Cells,’ 9 March 2009, viewed on
28 March 2009, < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-
Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-Cells/>
18
White House, ‘Memorandum: Scientific Integrity,’ 9 March 2009, viewed
on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-
of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/>
19
See for France, AVA, L’Amour Vrai Attend
<www.amourvraiattend.com>, viewed 16 March 2009; for Germany, WLW,
Wahre Liebe Wartet <www.wahreliebewartet.de>, viewed 16 March 2009; or
Belgium, WLW, Ware Liefde Wacht <http://www.wareliefdewacht.be/>,
viewed 16 March 2009.
20
“I love Laura: but I wait until marriage”
21
For a description of this campaign see Wikipedia:
<http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Happiness>, viewed on 16 March 2009.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 249
______________________________________________________________

22
G Dogget, ‘Chastity’s a Hard Sell For the Pope in Brazil,’ Agence France
Presse, 12 May 2007, viewed on 5 June 2007,
<http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=308215&area=/breaking_n
ews/breaking_news__international_news/>
23
Levine, 2002, p.XXIII.
24
Radford Ruether, 2001, p.192.
25
ibid., p.192.
26
Weeks, 1995, p.38.
27
J L Mullaney, Everyone is NOT Doing It: Abstinence and Personal
Identity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 2006, p.2.
28
Mullaney, 2006, p.58, and Moran, 2000, p.5,17.
29
M C Waters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America, University
of California Press, Berkeley, 1990, p.155.
30
Mullaney, 2006, p.174.
31
ibid., p.12.
32
Bearman and Brückner, 2001.
33
Mullaney, 2006, p.179.
34
Hendershot, 2004, p.88.
35
ibid., p.102-103.
36
ibid., p.100.
37
K Rowe Karlyn, ‘Scream, Popular Culture, and Feminism’s Third Wave:
‘I’m Not My Mother,’’ Genders OnLine Journal, 2003, 38, viewed on 14
June 2007, <http://www.genders.org/g38/g38_rowe_karlyn.html>, emphasis
in the original).
38
Daoust, 2005, p.142.
39
ibid., p.97.
 Bibliography
Abbott, E., A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, 2001.

ACGreen.com, ‘Abstinence Curriculum’. 2007, viewed on 15 March 2007,

<http://www.acgreen.com/default.aspx?pageid=3939>

Adler, J., ‘The New Naysayers’. Newsweek Online, 11 September 2006,

viewed on 8 February 2007,
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/>

Aikman, D., A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush.

Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2004.

Albert, B., ‘American Opinion on Teen Pregnancy and Related Issues 2003’.
7 February 2004, viewed 11 May 2007,
<https://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/American_Opinion.pdf>

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), ‘ACLU Applauds Federal

Government’s Decision to Suspend Public Funding of Religion by
Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program’. 22 August 2005,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://64.106.165.214/news/08.22.05%20SilverRing.pdf>

Ammerman, N.T., ‘North American Protestant Fundamentalism’ in L. Kintz

and J. Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious Right. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.

Ashbee, E., The Bush Administration, Sex and the Moral Agenda,
Manchester University Press. Manchester and New York, 2007.

Atwood, M., The Handmaid’s Tale, Anchor Books, New York, 1998.

Barna Group, ‘Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-
Christians’. 8 September 2004, viewed on 8 March 2006,
<http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUp
dateID=216&PageCMD=Print>

Bauer Maglin, N. and D. Perry (eds), “Bad Girls”/“Good Girls”: Women,

Sex and Power in the Nineties. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1996.
252 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Baumgardner, J. and N. Dépret, ‘Le bal de la virginité’. Glamour (French
Edition), May 2007, 38, pp.50-54.

Bearman, P.S. and H. Brückner, ‘Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and
the Transition to First Intercourse’. American Journal of Sociology, 2001,
106 (4), pp. 859-912.

Beil, L., ‘Abstinence Education Faces an Uncertain Future’. The New York
Times, 18 July 2007, viewed on 20 August 2007,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/education/18abstain.html?ex=1187841
600&en=a6f6061787e7cf9c&ei=5070>

Bell, J., ‘Understanding Adultism’. 1995, 15 February 2007,

<http://www.youthbuild.org/atf/cf/%7B22B5F680-2AF9-4ED2-B948-40C4B
32E6198%7D/Bell_UnderstandingAdultism.pdf>

Bercovitch, S., The American Jeremiad. University of Wisconsin Press,

Madison, 1978.

Bergman, J., ‘The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity’. June

2001, viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-336.pdf>

Berlant, L., The Queen of America Goes to Washington City. Duke

University Press, Durham and London, 1997.

Bhattacharyya, G., Sexuality and Society: An Introduction. Routledge,

London and New York, 2002.

Bird, W.R., ‘Evolution in Public Schools and Creation in Student’s Home:

What Creationist Can Do (Part I)’. 1979a, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.icr.org/article/151/>

Bird, W.R., ‘Evolution in Public Schools and Creation in Student’s Home:

What Creationist Can Do (Part II)’. 1979b, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.icr.org/articles/all/2/>

Blasko, A., ‘Reagan and Heritage: A Unique Partnership’. June 7, 2004,

viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060704e.cfm>

Bleakley, A., M. Hennessy and M. Fishbein, ‘Public Opinion on Sex

Education in US Schools’. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
November 2006, (160), pp. 1151-1156.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 253
______________________________________________________________

Brumberg, J.J., The Body Project: An Intimate History of American

Girlhood. Vintage Books, New York, 1997.

Buchanan, P.J., ‘Republican National Convention Speech’. 17 August 1992,

viewed on 5 March 2007, <http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html>

Burns, A. and M.E. Torre, ‘Shifting Desires: Discourses of Accountability in

Abstinence-only Education in the United States’ in A. Harris (ed), All About
the Girl: Culture, Power and Identity. Routledge, New York and London,
2004.

Bush, G. W., ‘Executive Order: Establishment of White House Office of

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives’. 29 January 2001, viewed on 18
June 2007, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/01/20010129-
2.html>

Bush, G.W., ‘National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002: A Proclamation

by the President of the United States of America’. 18 January 2002a, viewed
on 17 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020118-10.html>

Bush, G.W., ‘President Announces Welfare Reform Agenda’. 26 February

2002b, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020226-11.html>

Bush, G.W., ‘President Discusses Welfare Reform and Job Training’. 27

February 2002c, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020227-5.html>

Bush, G.W., ‘National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002: A Proclamation

by the President of the United States of America’. 18 January 2002d, viewed
on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020118-10.html>

Bush, G.W., ‘State of the Union Address’. 20 January 2004, viewed on 18

June 2007, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-
7.html>

Butler, S.M., and K. R. Holmes (eds), Priorities for the President. 2001,
viewed on 12 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Mandate/upload/Priorities-for-
the-President-pdf.pdf>
254 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Butterfield, F., ‘This Way Madness Lies: A Fall From Grace to Prison’. The
New York Times, 21 April 1996, viewed on 15 March 2007,
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E5D61E39F932A1575
7C0A960958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all>

Campbell, D.M., ‘Forms of Puritan Rhetoric: The Jeremiad and the

Conversion Narrative’. February 21, 2006, viewed on 5 March 2007,
<http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/jeremiad.htm>

Camus, A., La Peste, 1947.

Clinton, W. J., ‘The President’s Radio Address, May 4th 1996’. 1996, viewed
on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52768>

Clinton, W.J., ‘Radio Address of the President to the Nation’. St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands, 4 January 1997.

COALITION FOR ADOLESCENT SEXUAL HEALTH, ‘Zogby International 2003

Survey on Parents’ Reactions To Proposed Sex Education Messages In The
Classroom’. 3 February 2003, viewed on 13 May 2005,
<www.whatparentsthink.com/pdfs/z_p1_sokfbsdbq.pdf>

Coates, S., ‘God Is Cut From Film of Dark Materials.’ The Times Online, 8
December 2004, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article400396.ece>

Coburn, T. and R. Santorum (prepared for), Review of Comprehensive Sex

Education Curricula. 12 June 2007, viewed on 5 July 2007, <
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/abstinence/06122007-
153424.PDF >

Coltrane, S., ‘Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the

Politics of Fatherhood’. Sociological Perspectives, Winter 2001, 44 (4),
pp.347-418.

CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, ’Our Core Issues’. January 2007, viewed
on 13 March 2007, <http://www.cwfa.org/coreissues.asp>

Coontz, S. and N. Folbre, ‘Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy: A

Discussion Paper from the Council on Contemporary Families’. 28 April
2002, viewed on 10 November 2006,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 255
______________________________________________________________
<http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&e
xt=marriagepovertypublicpoli>

Coontz, S., Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy or How Love

Conquered Marriage. Viking Penguin, New York, 2005.

Coontz, S., ‘No Sex for You’. 6 November 2006, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/06/no_sex_for_you.php>

Cooperman, A., ‘Bush Leaves Specifics of His Faith to Speculation’. The

WashingtonPost.com, 16 September, 2004, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24634-2004Sep15.html>

Cott, N.F., ‘Passionlessness: An Interpretation of Victorian Sexual Ideology,

1790-1850’ in N.F. Cott and E.H. Pleck (eds), A Heritage of Her Own.
Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979.

Cott, N.F. and E.H. Pleck (eds), A Heritage of Her Own. Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1979.

Dailard, C., ‘Sex Education: Politicians, Parents, Teachers and Teens’

February 2001, viewed on 5 February 2009,
<http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html>

Daoust, V., De la sexualité en démocratie: L’individu libre et ses espaces

identitaires. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2005.

Darroch, J.E., Jacqueline E., S. Singh and J.J. Frost, ‘Differences in Teenage
Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed Countries: The Roles of Sexual
Activity and Contraceptive Use’. Family Planning Perspectives,
November/December 2001, 33 (6): pp.244-281.

Davis, M.S., Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago,1983.

D’Emilio, J. and E.B Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in

America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1997.

Diamond, S., Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian
Right. The Guilford Press, New York, 1998.

Dixon, K., Les évangélistes du marché, Raisons d’Agir Éditions, Paris, 1998.
256 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Dogget, G., ‘Chastity’s a Hard Sell For the Pope in Brazil’. Agence France
Presse, 12 May 2007, viewed on 5 June 2007,
<http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=308215&area=/breaking_n
ews/breaking_news__international_news/>

Durfield, R., ‘A Promise with a Ring to It’. Focus on the Family Magazine,
1990.

Dyer, R., Stars. British Film Institute, London, 1998.

Eager, G.B., Love, Dating and Sex: What Teens Want to Know. Mailbox Club
Books, Valdosta, 1989.

Edwards, L., The Power of Ideas: The Heritage Foundation at 25 Years.

Illinois: Jameson Books, Inc., Ottawa, 1997.

Elkind, D., Ties That Stress: The New Family Imbalance. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, 1994.

Ellenberg, J., ‘Sex and Significance: How the Heritage Foundation

cooked the books on virginity’. Slate.com. 7 July 2005, viewed on 21
August 2007, <http://slate.com/id/2122093/>

Elwell, W.A., (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic,

Grand Rapids, 2001.

Fagan, P.F., ‘Marriage and the Family’ in HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Issues

2006: The Candidate’s Briefing Book. 2006, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/pdfs/BriefingBook2006.pd
f>

Faludi, S., Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women. Anchor
Books Doubleday, New York, 1991.

Falwell, J., Listen America!. Doubleday, New York, 1980.

Fauchier-Delavigne, M., ‘L’abstinence vue par la presse des Etats-Unis’. Le

Monde.fr, 8 January 2003, viewed on 8 February 2007,
<http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/EH/F/cause/lectures/abstinence_
Etats-Unis.htm>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 257
______________________________________________________________
Fields, J., ‘Same-Sex Marriage, Sodomy Laws, and the Sexual Lives of
Young People.’ Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC,
September 2004, 1 (3), pp. 11-23.

Fields, J., ‘‘Children Having Children:’ Race, Innocence, and Sexuality

Education’. Social Problems, 2005, 52 (4), pp.549-571.

Fields, J., and D.L. Tolman, ‘Risky Business: Sexuality Education and
Research in U.S. Schools’. Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC,
September 2006, 3 (4), pp. 63-76.

Fields, J. and C. Hirschman, ‘Citizenship Lessons in Abstinence-Only

Sexuality Education’. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2007, 2 (2),
pp. 3-25.

Fields. J., Risky Lessons: Sex Education and Social Inequality. Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, 2008.

Fine, M., ‘Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent Females: The Missing

Discourse of Desire’. Harvard Educational Review, 1998, 58, pp.29-53.

Fineman, H., ‘Bush and God’. Newsweek, March 10, 2003: 22.

Finlay, B., George W. Bush and the War on Women: Turning Back the Clock
on Progress. Zed Books, London and New York, 2006.

Fiorina, M.P., S.J. Abrams and J.C. Pope, Culture War: The Myth of a
Polarized America. Pearson Longman, New York, 2005.

Foucault, M., Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir. Éditions

Gallimard, Paris, 1976.

Foucault, M., The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought.

Paul Rabinow (ed), Penguin Books, London, 1991.

FOX FAITH, ‘About Fox Faith’. 2006, viewed on 9 March 2007,

<www.foxfaith.com>

Frank, T., What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the
Heart of America. Metropolitan Books, New York, 2004.

Franklin, B., The Autobiography and Other Writings. Penguin Books,

London, 2003.
258 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Freking, K., ‘Funding for Abstinence Likely to Drop’. WashingtonPost.com,

16 May 2007, viewed on 29 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007
051602298.html>

Friedan, B., The Feminine Mystique. 1963.

Fulton, J., ‘Religion and Politics in Gramsci: An Introduction’. Sociological

Analysis, 1987, 48 (3): 197-216.

Furstenberg, F., ‘The Future of Marriage’. American Demographics, 1996,

18.

Gates, D., ‘Religion: The Pop Prophets’. Newsweek Online, 24 May 2005,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4988269/site/newsweek/>

Gavanas, A., Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity,

Sexuality, Race, and Marriage. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and
Chicago, 2004a.

Gavanas, A., ‘Domesticating Masculinity and Masculinizing Domesticity in

Contemporary US Fatherhood Politics’. Social Politics, 2004b, 11 (2),
pp.247-266.

Ginsberg, M., ‘The Politics of Sex Education’. Educational Law and Policy
Forum, 2005, 1, pp. 1-25.

Godbeer, R., Sexual Revolution in Early America. Johns Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore and London, 2002.

Gramsci, A., A Gramsci Reader. David Forgacs, (ed), Lawrence and Wishart,
London, 1999.

Grossberg, L., We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and
Postmodern Culture. Routledge, New York, 1992.

Hagelin, R., ‘Parenting II: We’re All in This Together’. 3 September 2003,
viewed on 7 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed093103a.cfm>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 259
______________________________________________________________
Hagelin, R., ‘Teens Can Be Responsible’. 28 April 2004a, viewed on 22
February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042804a.cfm>

Hagelin, R., ‘Selling Selfishness to Children’. July 27, 2004b, viewed on 15

February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072704c.cfm>

Hagelin, R., ‘The Culture War: A Five-Point Plan for Parents’. 9 August
2005a, viewed on 15 February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed080905a.cfm>

Hagelin, R., Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family In a Culture That’s

Gone Stark Raving Mad. Nelson Current, Nashville, 2005b.

Hagelin, R., ‘America’s Little Girls ... or Tramps?’. 4 March 2005c, viewed
on 15 February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed030405a.cfm>

Hagelin, R., ‘Fashioning a Response to Immodest Clothing’. 23 August

2005d, viewed on 7 March 2007,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082305a.cfm>

Hagelin, R., ‘Debunking the Siren Song of ‘Safe Sex’’. 22 July 2005e,
viewed on 9 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072205a.cfm>

Hagelin, R., ‘Creating a Culture of Belonging’. 1 August 2006, viewed on 15

February 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed080106b.cfm>

Ham, K., ‘‘Back To Genesis’ The Hope For America?’. 7 April 1993, viewed
on 15 February 2007, < http://www.icr.org/article/731/>

Harris, A., (ed), All About the Girl: Culture, Power and Identity. Routledge,
New York and London, 2004.

Harris Interactive, ‘Majorities of U.S. Adults Do Not Believe Abstinence

Programs are Effective in Preventing or Reducing HIV/AIDS, Unwanted
Pregnancies or Extra-Marital Sex’. 11 January 2006, viewed on 23 June
2007, <http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=629>
260 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Hatlen, B., ‘Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Challenge to the Fantasies of
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, with an Epilogue on Pullman’s Neo-
Romantic Reading of Paradise Lost,’ in M. Lenz and C. Scott (eds), His
Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy.
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 2005.

Hendershot, H., Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative
Evangelical Culture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London,
2004.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Issues 2006: The Candidate’s Briefing Book. 2006,

viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/pdfs/BriefingBook2006.pd
f>

HERITAGE FOUNDATION, ‘Issues: Education’. 2007, viewed on 16 March

2007, <http://www.heritage.org/research/education/>

Homeinvasion.org, ‘About Rebecca Hagelin’. 2007, viewed on 15 March

2007, <http://www.homeinvasion.org/AboutTheAuthor.cfm>

Howell, M., ‘The Future of Sexuality Education: Science or Politics?’.

Transitions, March 2001, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/transitions/transitions
1203.pdf>

Huffstutter, P.J., ‘States Abstain From Federal Sex-Ed Funds’. LATimes.com.

8 April 2007, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-
abstinence8apr08,1,1290457,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true>

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘Questions and Answers on the UN Special Session

on Children’. 2006, viewed on 29 March 2007,
<http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm>

Hunter, J.D., Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Basic Books,
New York, 1991.

Independent Sector, Overview and Executive Summary: Trends Emerging

from the National Survey of Volunteering and Giving Among Teenagers.
2003.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 261
______________________________________________________________
Irvine, J.M., Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United
States. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002.

Jayson, S., ‘Abstinence Message Goes Beyond Teens’. USAtoday.com, 31 October

2006, 23 March 2007,
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm>

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae. 25 March 1995, viewed on 26 May

2007,<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/document
s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html>

Johnson, E., ‘The Emergence of Christian Video and the Cultivation of Videovangelism’
in L. Kintz and J. Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious Right.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.

KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, National Public Radio and the Kennedy

School of Government, ‘Sex Education in America: General Public/Parents
Survey’. 2004, viewed on 9 February 2007,
<http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-General-
Public-Parents-Survey-Toplines.pdf>

KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, ‘Sexual Health Statistics for Teenagers and

Young Adults in the United States’. September 2006, viewed on 11 May
2007, <http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/3040-03.pdf>

Kaisernetwork.org, ‘Nearly 150 Advocacy Groups Send Letter to HHS

Secretary Criticizing Government Sex Ed Web Site as Biased, Inaccurate’.
April 1, 2005a, viewed on 11 May 2007,
<http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=29069
>

Kaisernetwork.org, ‘HHS Abstinence Web Site for Parents of Teens Contains

Inaccurate, Misleading Information, Review Says’. July 14, 2005b, viewed
on 11 May 2007,
<www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=31365>

Kaisernetwork.org, ‘Federal Guidelines Expand Scope of Abstinence

Education Funds To Include People up to Age 29’. 31 October 2006, viewed
11 May 2007,
<http://kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_repro_recent_reports.cfm?dr_cat
=2&show=yes&dr_DateTime=10-31-06#40759>
262 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Kincaid, J.R., Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture.
Routledge, New-York and London, 1994.

Kincaid, J.R., Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting. Duke

University Press, Durham and London, 1998.

Kintz, L., Between Jesus and the Market: The Emotions that Matter in Right-
Wing America. Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1997.

Kintz, L., ‘Clarity, Mothers and Mass-Mediated Soul: A Defense of

Ambiguity’ in L. Kintz and J. Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious
Right. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.

Kintz, L. and J. Lesage (eds), Media, Culture and the Religious Right.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1998.

Kirby, D., ‘Do Abstinence-Only Programs Delay the Initiation of Sex

Among Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy?’. October 2002, viewed
on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf>

LaHaye, B., The Spirit Controlled Woman. Harvest House, Irvine, 1976.

LaHaye, B., Who Will Save Our Children? Wolgemuth and Hyatt Pub.,
Brentwood, 1991.

LaHaye, B. The Desires of A Woman’s Heart. Tyndale, Wheaton, 1993.

LaHaye, B. and J. Crouse, The Strength of a Godly Woman. Harvest House

Publishers, Eugene, 2001.

LaHaye, T., The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About
Homosexuality. Tyndale, Wheaton, 1978.

LaHaye, T., The Battle for the Mind, Revell, Old Tappan, 1980.

LaHaye, T. and B., Against the Tide: Raising Sexually Pure Kids in an
Anything-Goes World. Mutnomah Publishers, Sisters, 1993.

LaHaye, T. and B., Raising Sexually Pure Kids: How to Prepare Your
Children for the Act of Marriage. Mutnomah Publishers, Sisters, 1998a.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 263
______________________________________________________________
LaHaye, T. and B., The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love.
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998b.

LaHaye, T. and J. Jenkins, Left Behind (series). Tyndale, Wheaton, 1995-

2005.

LaHaye, T. and D. Noebel, Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New
Millennium. Word Publishing, Nashville, 2000.

Lawson, A. and D.L. Rhode (eds), The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent

Sexuality and Public Policy. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1993.

Lecourt, D., L’Amérique entre la Bible et Darwin. Presses Universitaires de

France, Paris, 1998.

Le Devoir, ‘La stratégie américaine de l’abstinence soulève les critiques.’ Le

Devoir, 15 August 2006, viewed on 8 February 2007,
<http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/08/15/115899.html>

Leftbehind.com, ‘Dr. Tim LaHaye Bio’. 2007, viewed on 13 March 2007,

<http://www.leftbehind.com/channelbooks.asp?pageid=1267&channelID=22
5>

Lenz, M. and C. Scott (eds), His Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays
on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 2005.

Lesko, N., Act Your Age: A Cultural Construction of Adolescence.

Routledge, New York and London, 2001.

Levine, J., Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London, 2001.

Limbert, W.M. and H.E. Bullock, ‘‘Playing the Fool’: US Welfare Policy
from a Critical Race Perspective’. Feminism and Psychology, 2005, 15(3),
pp.253-274.

Locke, J., A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689, April 2002, viewed on 8

February 2007, <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-
new2?id=LocTole.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/moden
g/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1>

Luker, K., Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
264 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Luker, K., When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex - and Sex
Education - Since the 1960s. Norton & Co, New York and London, 2006.

MacKenzie, D., ‘Will cancer vaccine get to all women?’. NewScientist.com,

18 April 2005, viewed on 22 June 2007,
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500>

Mansfield, S., The Faith Of George W. Bush. Charisma House, New York,
2004.

Martin, W., With God on Our Side. Broadway Books, New York, 1996.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510

Abstinence Education Programs, Final Report. April 2007, viewed on 8 May
2007, <http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/
impactabstinence.pdf>

McKay, A., Sexual Ideology and Schooling: Towards Democratic Sexuality

Education. State of New York University Press, Albany, 1999.

Medinstitute.org, ‘Employment or Internship Opportunities’. 2007, viewed

on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=employment>

Meeker, M., Restoring the Teenage Soul: Nurturing Sound Hearts and Minds
in a Confused Culture. McKinley and Mann, Traverse City, 1999.

Meeker, M., Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids. LifeLine Press,
Washington, D. C., 2002.

Meeker, M., Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, 10 Secrets Every Father

Should Know. Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Mehta, S., ‘Teens’ Dancing Is Freaking Out the Adults.’ Los Angeles Times,
17 October 2006, viewed on 8 December 2006,
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freaking17oct17,0,4105810.
story?-coll=la-home-headlines>

Milbank, D., ‘Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office’. The
WashingtonPost.com, 24 December 2001, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19253-2001Dec23?language
=printer>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 265
______________________________________________________________

Moran, J.P., Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th Century.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 2000.

Morris, H.M., ‘The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution’. 1

July 1975, viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/article/71/>

Morris, H.M., ‘All Nations Under God’. October 2002, viewed on 19 June
2007, <http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-166.pdf>

Morris, J., ‘Are Schools Teaching Evolution Well Enough?’. 1 June 1998,
viewed on 19 June 2007, <http://www.icr.org/article/1181/>

Moynihan, P., The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Office of
Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
Washington D. C., 1965.

MSNBC.com, ‘Nearly 3 in 10 Young Teens ‘Sexually Active’’. MSNBC

News, 31 January 2005, viewed on 21 February 2007,
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839072/>

Mullaney, J. L., Everyone is NOT Doing It: Abstinence and Personal

Identity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 2006.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE, ‘NFI History’. 2007, viewed on March

22 2007, <https://www.fatherhood.org/history.asp>

National Health Information Center, ‘Most Americans Favor Comprehensive

Sex Education’. Family Health and Relationships Newsletter, 20 November
2006, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.healthfinder.gov/newsletters/relation112006.asp>

Nonewmoney.org, ‘A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

Funding’. 2006a, viewed on 22 March 2007,
<http://www.nonewmoney.org/history.html>

Nonewmoney.org, ‘Harmful Consequences,’ 2006b, 23 March 2007,

<http://www.nonewmoney.org/harmful.html>

Nonewmoney.org, ‘A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

Funding: Spending for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs (1982-
2008)’. 2007, viewed 21 June 2007,
<http://nomoremoney.org/historyChart.html>
266 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Nonewmoney.org, ‘On Our Side: Public Support for Comprehensive

Sexuality Education’. 2006c, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.nonewmoney.org/public.html>

Nonewmoney.org, ‘A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

Funding: Spending for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs (1982-
2008)’. 2007, viewed 21 June 2007,
<http://nomoremoney.org/historyChart.html>

Northcott, M.S., An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic Religion and

American Empire. I. B. Tauris, London, 2004.

O’Leary, S. D., Arguing the Apocalypse: A theory of Millennial Rhetoric.

Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

Oprah.com, ‘The Lost Children of Rockdale County’. 7 February 2000,

viewed on 21 February 2007,
<http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000207.jht
ml>

Oprah.com, ‘A New Kind of Spin the Bottle: Dr. Phil on Alarming Sexual
Behavior Among Children’. 7 May 2002, 12 February 2007,
<http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020507_b.j
html>

Pagels, E., The Origin of Satan. Random House, New York, 1995.

Pardue, M.G., R. Rector and S. Martin, ‘Executive Summary: Government

Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on
Abstinence’. 14 January 2004, viewed on 17 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718es.cfm>

Pardue, M.G.,‘Waxman Report Is Riddled with Errors and Inaccuracies’. 2

December 2004, viewed on 15 March 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm615.cfm>

Phoenix, A., ‘The social Construction of Teenage Motherhood: A Black and

White Issue?’ in A. Lawson and D. L. Rhode (eds), The Politics of
Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy. Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1993.
 Claire Greslé-Favier 267
______________________________________________________________
Piccione, J.J. and R.A. Scholle, ‘Combatting Illegitimacy and Counseling
Teen Abstinence: A Key Component of Welfare Reform’. 31 August 1995,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1051.cfm>

Piekarec, M., ‘Droits des enfants: le déni américain’. Le Devoir, 8 May 2002,
viewed on 29 March 2007,
<http://www.ledevoir.com/2002/05/08/376.html#>

Pillow, W. S., Unfit Subjects: Educational Policy and the Teen Mother.
RoutledgeFalmer, New York and London, 2004.

Pipher, M., Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. Grosset
Putnam, New York, 1994.

Pontifical Council for the Family, ‘The Truth and Meaning of Human
Sexuality, Guidelines for Education within the Family’. 8 December 1995,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/r
c_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html>

Public Agenda, Kids These Days ’99: What Americans Really Think About
the Next Generation. 1999, viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/kids_these_days_99.pdf>

Public Health Institute, ‘Regardless of Religion, Politics or Location, New

Poll Shows Overwhelming Parental Support for Comprehensive Sex Ed’. 23
May 2007, viewed on 25 May 2007,
<http://askmerrill.ml.com/markets_news_story/1,2263,%7B8A40E614-
F1C3-47CB-843B-6DEF0E770DC8%7D,00.html>

Pullman, P., His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass: Book I, 1995; The
Subtle Knife: Book II, 1997; The Amber Spyglass: Book III, 2000; Dell
Yearling, New York.

Radford Ruether, R., Christianity and the Making of the Modern Family.
SCM Press, London, 2001.

Raymo, C., Skeptics and True Believers. Walker, New York, 1998.

Rector, R., ‘Implementing Welfare Reform and Promoting Marriage’. in S.

M. Butler and K. R. Holmes (eds), Priorities for the President. 2001, viewed
268 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
on 12 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Mandate/upload/Priorities-for-
the-President-pdf.pdf>

Rector, R.,‘Abstinence Promotion,’ in HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Issues 2006:

The Candidate’s Briefing Book. 2006, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/pdfs/BriefingBook2006.pd
f>

Rector, R. and K.A. Johnson, ‘Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic

Achievement.’ 27 October 2005, viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/84576_1.pdf >

Reisser, P.C., The Focus on the Family Complete Book of Baby and Child
Care. Tyndale, Wheaton, 1997.

Republican Study Committee, ‘Title X Funding and Abstinence Funding’.

April 2006, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/HC_061306_TitleXvs.Abstinence
Funding.doc>

Rezé, M. and R. Bowen, Key Words in American Life: Understanding the

United States. Armand Colin, Paris, 1998.

Rhode, D.L., ‘Adolescent Pregnancy and Public Policy’ in A. Lawson and D.

L. Rhode (eds), The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public
Policy. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1993.

Roach, E., ‘What if abstinence legislation expires?’. Baptist Press, 22 May

2007, viewed on 4 July 2007,
<http://www.sbcbaptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=25699>

Rogers Radl, S., The Invisible Woman: Target of the Religious New Right.
Delacorte Press, New York, 1983.

Rosenberg, D., ‘The Battle Over Abstinence’. Newsweek, 9 December 2002,

8 February 2007,
<http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:8r4Am9U68hwJ:www.indiana.edu/~
llc/Current_Students/q199/battle.pdf+newsweek+human+rights+watch+absti
nence+2002&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=de>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 269
______________________________________________________________
Rowe Karlyn, K., ‘Scream, Popular Culture, and Feminism’s Third Wave:
‘I’m Not My Mother’’. Genders OnLine Journal, 2003, 38, viewed on 14
June 2007, <http://www.genders.org/g38/g38_rowe_karlyn.html>

Rowling, J. K., Harry Potter. Bloomsbury, London, 1997-2007.

Rubin, G., ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of
Sexuality,’ in C. Vance (ed), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female
Sexuality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, 1984.

Rushing, W., ‘Sin, Sex, and Segregation: Social Control and the Education of
Southern Women.’ Gender and Education, June 2002, 14 (2), pp.167-179.

Rwnetwork.net, ‘Rebecca Hagelin’. 2007, viewed 15 March, 2007,

<http://www.rwnetwork.net/Rebecca_Hagelin>

Sands, K.M., (ed), God Forbid: Religion and Sex in American Public Life.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2000.

Sands, K.M., ‘Public, Pubic, and Private, Religion in Political Discourse,’ in

K.M. Sands (ed), God Forbid: Religion and Sex in American Public Life.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2000.

Santelli, J., M.A. Ott, M. Lyon, J. Rogers, D. Summers and R. Schleifer,

‘Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education: A Review of U.S. Policies and
Programs’. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2006, 38 (1), pp. 72-81.

Santorum, R., ‘Heritage Lecture: The Necessity of Marriage’. 20 October

2003, viewed on 18 June 2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/HL-804.cfm>

Scales, P., ‘The Public Image of Adolescents’. Society, May 2001, 38 (4), pp.
64-75.

Schimmeck, T., ‘Der Krieg gegen Sex’. Die Zeit, 9 September 2004, viewed
on 8 February 2007,
<http://www.zeit.de/2004/38/Ami-Keuschheit?page=all>

Schleifer, R., Ignorance Only HIV/AIDS, Human Rights and Federally

Funded Abstinence-Only Programs in the United States. September 2002, 14
(5) (G), viewed on March 16 2009,
<http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000
019b/80/1a/a5/5a.pdf>
270 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Schneider, B. and D. Stevenson, The Ambitious Generation: America’s

Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless. Yale University Press, New Haven,
1999.

Seidman, S., Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethics in Contemporary

America. Routledge, New York, 1992.

Seidman, S., Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian
Life. Routledge, New York and London, 2002.

Sessions Stepp, L.,‘Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs’. The

WashingtonPost.com, 14 April 2007, viewed on 8 May 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/
AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_health>

Shell Oil, ‘Teens Under Pressure, Coping Well’. The Shell Poll, 1999, 1(4),
pp.1-3.

SIECUS, ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH, ‘Toward a Sexually Healthy America:

Roadblocks Imposed by the Federal Government’s Abstinence-Only-Until-
Marriage Education Program’. 2001, viewed on 13 March 2007,
<http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/abstinenceonly.pdf>

SIECUS, ‘State Profile 2005: Nevada’. 2006a, viewed on 13 March 2007,

<http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/2005/mandates/NV.html>

SIECUS, ‘Special Report: It Gets Worse: A Revamped Federal Abstinence-

Only Program Goes Extreme’. 2006b, viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.siecus.org/policy/SpecialReports/Revamped_Abstinence-
Only_Goes_Extreme.pdf>

SIECUS, ‘A New Congress Should Enforce Accountability Over Abstinence-

Only Programs’. 16 November 2006c, viewed on 29 May 2007,
<http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0136.html>

SIECUS, ‘A Brief History of Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

Funding’. 2008, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=670
&grandparentID=478&parentID=487>

SIECUS, ‘Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Holds First-

Ever Hearings on Abstinence Only Until Marriage Programs’. April 2008,
 Claire Greslé-Favier 271
______________________________________________________________
viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1144&pageid=483&parentid=478>

SIECUS, ‘First Ever Cuts to Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs’. 11

March 2009, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1615&pageid=611&parentid=479>

SIECUS, ‘SIECUS Applauds the Introduction of the Responsible Education

About Life (REAL) Act’. 17 March 2009, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featurei
d=1650&pageid=611&parentid=479>

Siker, J., ‘President Bush, Biblical faith, and the Politics of Religion’.
Religious StudiesNews. SBL edition, May 2003, 4 (5), viewed on 6 February
2007, <http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=151>

Singer, L., Erotic Welfare: Sexual Theory and Politics in the Age of
Epidemic. Routledge, London & New York, 1993.

Stacey, J., In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the
Postmodern Age. Beacon Press, Boston, 1996.

Stern, S.R., ‘Self-Absorbed, Dangerous, and Disengaged: What Popular

Films Tell Us About Teenagers’. Mass Communication, 2005, 8 (1), pp. 23-
38.

Stockman, F. et al., ‘Bush Brings Faith to Foreign Aid’. The Boston Globe
Online. 8 October 2006, viewed on 14 February 2007,
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_
to_foreign_aid/>

STOP FAMILY VIOLENCE, ‘Press Release: Mothers File International

Complaint Against United States’. 11 May 2007, viewed on 29 May 2007,
<http://stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?page=471>

Suskind, R., ‘Without a Doubt’. The New York Times, October 17, 2004,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665
600en=890a96189e162076ei=509>
272 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Thurman, J., ‘House rejects Africa AIDS/abstinence aid’. The Baptist Press,
2 July 2007, viewed on 4 July 2007,
<http://www.sbcbaptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=26002>

Timlahaye.com, ‘Tim LaHaye Biography’. 2004, viewed on 13 march 2007,

<http://www.timlahaye.cm/about_ministry/index.php3?p=bio&section=Biogr
aphy>

Timlahaye.com, ‘Pre-Trib Research Center’. 2004, viewed on 13 March

2007,
<http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/index.php3?p=pretrib&section=
PreTrib%20Research%20Center>

Tolman, D. L. and T. E. Higgins, ‘How Being a Good Girl Can Be Bad for
Girls,’ in N. Bauer Maglin and D. Perry (eds), “Bad Girls”/“Good Girls”:
Women, Sex and Power in the Nineties. Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, 1996.

Tolman, D.L., Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2002.

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTIST, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An

Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science. March 2004,
viewed on 23 March 2007,
<http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/RSI_final_fullr
eport_1.pdf>

U.S. Congress, Senate, Abstinence Education: Special Hearing before a

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States
Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd sess., 16 February 2004.

U.S. Department of Labor, Issues in Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Summary 02-06, 2002.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Parents, Speak Up! Guide
for Discussing Abstinence Sex, and Relationships. 2005a, viewed on 6 March
2007, <http://www.4parents.gov/downloads/parentguide.pdf>

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Teen Chat: A Guide to

Discussing Healthy Relationships. 2005b, viewed on 6 March 2007,
<http://www.4parents.gov/downloads/teenchat.pdf>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 273
______________________________________________________________
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children
and Families, ‘Announcement for Funding Opportunity Under CBAE,
Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099’. 2006a,
viewed on 22 March 2007, <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/pdf/HHS-2006-
ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.pdf>

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children

and Families, ‘FY 2007 Program Announcement, Section 510 Abstinence
Education Program’. 2006b, viewed on 27 March 2007,
<http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/pdf/ACYF-FYSB-AE-01-06updated.pdf>

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children

and Families, ‘HHS Unveils “Parents Speak Up” National Campaign PSA
Campaign, New Web Site Help Parents Talk to Kids About Waiting to Have
Sex’. 21 June 2007, viewed on 2 July 2007,
<http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2007/parents_speak_up.htm>

Vance, C., (ed.), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality.

Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, 1984.

Vineyard, A., ‘Protection Teens Are Still Not Getting’. 19 December 2002,
viewed on 19 June 2007,
<http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2944&departm
ent=BLI&categoryid=femfacts&subcategoryid=blicul>

Vulliamy, E., ‘Bush Promotes Virgin Values to Curb Teen Sex’. The
Observer, 28 April 2002, 8 February 2007,
<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,,706578,00.html>

Wallis, J., ‘Dangerous Religion’. Sojourners Magazine, September-October

2003, viewed on 26 May 2007,
<http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&ar
ticle=030910>

The Washington Post, ‘Transcript of Roundtable Interview’. Washington

Post.com. 2 August 2005, viewed on 27 February 2007,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2
005080200899_5.html>

Waters, M. C., Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. University of

California Press, Berkeley, 1990.
274 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________
Waxman, H.A. (prepared for), The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-
Only Education Programs. December 2004, viewed on 22 May 2007, <
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf>

Waxman, H.A. (prepared for), False and Misleading Information Provided

by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers. July 2006, viewed 26
May 2007,
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060717101140-30092.pdf>

Weeks, J., Sexuality and its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern
Sexualities. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985.

Weeks, J., Sexuality. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 1986.

Weeks, J., Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in an Age of Uncertainty.

Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995.

West, T.C., ‘The Policing of Black Women’s Sexual Reproduction,’ in K.M.

Sands (ed), God Forbid: Religion and Sex in American Public Life. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York, 2000.

Wetzstein, C., ‘Unwed Mothers Set a Record for Births’. The Washington
Times, April 18, 2001.

Wetzstein, C., ‘Poll finds majority back birth control; Access sought without
‘delay’’. The Washington Times, June 8, 2007a, viewed on 24 June 2007,
<http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/poll_finds_majority_ba
ck_birth_control.htm>

Wetzstein, C., ‘Study: More ‘condoms’ than ‘abstinence’ in sex-ed’. The

Washington Times, 14 June 2007b, viewed on 24 June 2007,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/N
ATION/106140075&SearchID=73285126621455>

White House, Working Toward Independence. 2002, viewed on 16 February

2009, < http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/
welfare-reform-announcement-book.pdf>

White House, President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of

Achievement. August 2004, viewed on 24 March 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/Achievement.pdf>
 Claire Greslé-Favier 275
______________________________________________________________
White House, ‘Press Briefing by Scott McClellan’. 26 May 2005, viewed on
25 March 2007,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526-1.html>

White House, ‘Memorandum: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for

Voluntary Population Planning’. 23 January 2009, viewed on 28 March 2009,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-Voluntary
PopulationPlanning/>

White House, ‘Executive Order: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific

research Involving Human Stem Cells’. 9 March 2009, viewed on 28 March
2009, < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-
Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-Cells/>

White House, ‘Memorandum: Scientific Integrity’. 9 March 2009, viewed on

28 March 2009,
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-
of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/>

Wildermuth, J., ‘Welfare reform heading back to Congress next year’. San
Francisco Chronicle, 4 November 2001, p. A11.

Wolfe, A., One Nation, After All: What Middle-Class Americans Think
About: God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality,
Work, The Right, The Left, and Each Other. Penguin Books, London, 1999.

Legal Texts

Adolescent Family Life Act of 1981. United States Code /Title 42, The Public
Health and Welfare Chapter 6A - Public Health and Service/Subchapter
XVIII - Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Project, 97th Congress.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Public Law 97-35, 97th

Congress.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. H.R. 6, Public Law 103-382, 103rd
Congress.

Defence of Marriage Act of 1996. H.R. 3396, Public Law 104-199, 104th
Congress.
276 Bibliography
______________________________________________________________

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

H.R. 3734, Public Law No: 104-193, 104th Congress also referred to as Social
Security Act.

Children’s Internet Protection Act. Public Law 106-554, Title XVII, 106th
Congress.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools

Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Also known as
Patriot Act. Public Law 107-56, 107th Congress.

Marriage Protection Act of 2003. H.R. 3313, 108th Congress.

Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003. H.R. 4,

108th Congress.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Also known as Laci and Conner’s
Law. H.R. 1997, Public Law 108-212, 108th Congress.

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. H.R. 748, introduced 2005, 109th
Congress.

Marriage Protection Amendment. Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced

2005, 109th Congress.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District:

Memorandum Opinion. 20 December 2005, viewed on 10 June 2007,

<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>

Films

Adamson, A., (dir), The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,
2005.

Apted, M., (dir), Amazing Grace, 2006.

Goodman, R.D. and B. Goodman (dir), The Lost Children of Rockdale

County, 1999.

Meeker, M., P.J. Warren and M. Maxwell Billingsly (narrators), The Rules
Have Changed the Teen STD Epidemic. 2004.